RPT Newsletter #015 & #016 | Campaign Structure Part I & II

[Stephan Hornick]

Campaign Structure Part I
From Peter Maranci | updated May 20, 2021

Roleplaying Tips Newsletter #015


This is the first in a two-part series on campaign structure. Read Campaign Structure Part II.

Fundamental to any roleplaying campaign is the conceptual structure which controls it. That structure is the basic frame upon which the gamemaster creates the framework of the campaign, like a tapestry on a loom; as the initial pattern is set, so goes the game. And yet the creation of campaign structure is rarely considered as a subject in itself.

The basic building block of all plot structure is the story; a flow of events containing a beginning, a middle, and an end. This essential unit can be used in three ways. There are few unalloyed examples of these forms in the real world, of course; many stories combine different elements from various forms, with one type predominating.


The Stand-Alone: A to B to C
A stand-alone story is self-contained; the point of the story is the telling or playing of it, and once the end is reached there is nothing more to be said. In roleplaying, the one-shot scenario is an example of a stand-alone structure. Made-for-TV movies follow this pattern; so do many short stories. Anthology shows such as The Twilight Zone are an excellent example of collections of unrelated stand-alone plots.

This structure offers the advantage of extreme clarity and comparatively little commitment of time. It is limited in effectiveness, however. Compared to other, longer forms it doesn’t give the creator enough time to develop sub-themes and character development. Participants have less time to build a strong attachment to characters. On the other hand, a series of unconnected stand-alones allows treatment of many widely differing stories and settings.


A Never-Ending Cycle : A, B, C, A, B, C, A, B, C… (repeat until failure)
Take a set of characters and produce a string of stories about them and you have a cyclical plot structure. This is the most common form on television; almost every drama and sitcom falls into this pattern. So do most comic books. Early roleplaying campaigns used this form almost exclusively, and I suspect that it is still the most popular type of campaign.

The advantages of this form are several. In a way, it provides the greatest quantity of material for the effort expended by the creator; once the characters and setting are created, new stories may be plugged into the formula with ease. Characters and setting are unlikely to change, and so require little or no upkeep. The formula can be repeated indefinitely; participants will have a chance to become familiar with the characters and develop attachments.

Individual characters and settings can be more richly developed over time, as they accrue incidental details — though the creator(s) must be careful not to alter the basic structure, lest the cycle be disrupted and disaffect participants/consumers.

The cyclical form offers advantages from a sociological/economic perspective, too. As the only form which has the potential to continue indefinitely, it is ideally suited to a medium such as television in which the ultimate point is marketing. Obviously once a successful structure has been developed those who profit by it are unwilling to allow it to end…

…which is itself a disadvantage, of course. In television in particular the purpose of the cyclical story is not to tell a story, but to protect a profit-making entity. Thus a disadvantage of the cyclical form is its inherently static quality. Successors to the original Star Trek series are an excellent example of this; corporate executives have made no secret of the fact that their only purpose in producing the show is to “protect the franchise” and thereby their profits.

Absolute changelessness is the law. Thus far this approach seems to have been successful from a financial viewpoint, though it is arguable that the Star Trek story and universe have been diminished by it.

One interesting aspect of the cyclical story pattern is the means by which it ends. The point of such a pattern is to continue indefinitely; as with all things, however, the story eventually must come to an end. Since there is no provision for winding the cycle up, however, the result is that cyclical stories often end abruptly, with little or no sense of closure.

In the case of television, this means either no ending at all or a hasty wrap-up episode with no meaningful connection to the preceding body of work.

This is the first in a two-part series on campaign structure. Read Campaign Structure Part II.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

Campaign Structure Part II
From Peter Maranci | updated May 20, 2021

Roleplaying Tips Newsletter #016

This is the second in a two-part series on campaign structure. Read Campaign Structure Part I.


The Meta-Cycle
Also known as an “arc”, the meta-cycle is a long-duration story form that has a beginning, middle, and end. This type can be divided into two sub-forms: “Padded” and “Expanded”.


Padded: A to a1; a2, a3, a4 etc.; B; b1, b2, b3, etc.
Padded story structures are a fairly straight combination of types I and II. Between the beginning and end of the entire cycle are any number of sub-stories; these sub-stories have comparatively little impact on the overarching story. In such a structure, the existence of a “middle” point is usually academic; between the beginning and the end all stories are interchangeable.

There is little difference between this form and that of a Never-Ending Cycle that includes a beginning and ending, and the advantages and disadvantages are similar to the Type II form.


Expanded: A to aa to ab to B to bb to bc to C
In the expanded meta-cycle structure the basic story is enlarged to a large but limited extent; there is a beginning, middle, and end, but each of these are developed in greater detail. The basic story is developed in greater detail and depth, through sub-cycles with associated sub-plots and recursions. This is the most complex of the various structures. It is also the least common in any medium.

The expanded meta-cycle is a form of saga, and as such its roots are ancient. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are excellent historical examples of this form; in modern literature, The Lord of the Rings is an obvious exemplar. Both The Prisoner and Babylon 5 are combination forms, containing type II and III elements; though they have definite arcs and go through an evolutionary process, there is a degree of “padding” used to add bulk to the story.

This additional padding may be necessary to avoid the simplification of an expanded saga; otherwise viewer/participants may find every new plot point to be too obviously connected to the main plot. In other words, if everything that happens is significant to the story arc, the creator will suffer the considerable disadvantage of predictability and consequent boredom and disenchantment by consumers.

There are obvious advantages to the expanded meta-cycle. It allows the creator to tell a story in great detail; there is no limitation on length apart from those imposed by the medium (i.e., until the show is cancelled, the publishing option is dropped, or the players stop coming to the game).

A well-done saga is also addictive. As players/viewers/readers learn more about the characters and setting they come to care for them, too. The result is loyal fans who support the efforts of the creator, and often attempt to create their own additions to the story (which is, of course, the point in a roleplaying game).

The last advantage to the expanded meta-cycle is the least tangible, and the most difficult to define. It is a sense of meaning. By its nature the saga must have a point, and if the story is successful that point will be powerfully conveyed to the participants. It is even possible for that meaning to influence the participants’ lives outside of the story itself, and thus to make a lasting mark on society.

But in any case, a well-done arc, once completed, can be the most powerful form of storytelling possible. Each differing part of the arc can give added resonance and meaning to the whole.

Disadvantages are obvious. The expanded meta-cycle demands a maximum investment of time and skill. If handled poorly, it falls apart; and the failure is that much more painful to the creator because of the work that has gone into the creative process. The structure is also less flexible than other forms; additions and alterations must be weighed carefully to avoid disrupting the basic story.

The expanded meta-cycle also demands more from the viewer/player, which can be a particular handicap in commercial media; once the saga has begun, bringing new spectators up to speed on the storyline is difficult (come to think of it, that applies to roleplaying sagas as well).


Comparison between I, II, and III
All of these forms of story structure are used in roleplaying games. I’ve run and played in all three types myself. Type I is any one-shot scenario; soloquests also fit within this category, and so do many Paranoia campaigns (I suspect that TOON games do as well, though I haven’t played any).

Classic AD&D roleplaying campaigns can be placed within category II, though the continuing improvement of character abilities provides an upward curve to the power level of the game that makes it a less than perfect example of the type; old-style Traveller with its lack of PC skill improvement is closer to an ideal Never-Ending Cycle, though typically characters tend to acquire money and equipment over time.

In my own experience I’m presently involved with an old-fashioned round-robin RuneQuest campaign which could be considered to be category II. It’s fun, the characters are relatively low-maintenance, and it’s easy to create a scenario for the campaign.

“Deep” roleplaying campaigns can be generally placed in category III. My own Nereyon campaign fits that category nicely: it has a definite beginning, middle, and end (though not reached yet), and has lasted for eight or nine years. Over that time the characters and world have evolved considerably, with numerous revelations that have required the players to reconsider past events in a new light. Conversely, their actions have changed the world and forced me to re-evaluate major plot points.


So which is best?
When I began this essay I assumed that insofar as the types would be compared to each other, the expanded meta-cycle would emerge as the superior structure. It was that form of roleplaying that drew me into the hobby, after all; and I’ve spent twelve or more years working on that form. On television, meta-cycle shows such as The Prisoner and Babylon 5 have stood head and shoulders above other forms in my book. Of course sagas are the best way to go — or so I thought.

But that’s not how it turned out. It’s fortunate that I’m involved with two RPG campaigns, one each of types II and III; that gives me a chance to compare. And to discover that comparisons of this sort are meaningless. It’s a cliche, yes, but the fact is that each form has unique and valuable qualities. Each has its place.

Perhaps the meta-cycle RPG campaign is under-respresented in the gaming world, but then the effort for such a game is more than many people would want to expend — and in truth many GMs probably lack the skill and patience to develop such a campaign. Other forms offer different enjoyment and advantages, and the comparative success of type II roleplaying does not detract from the good points of type III.

In television, too, there are outstanding shows in all forms. B5 and The Prisoner are well-written and enjoyable, but the original Star Trek is equally so — and that show is almost pure type II. And The Twilight Zone proves that a show that follows the type I pattern can be as classic and well-done as any other.

The lesson, then (if one may be derived at all) is that though structure determines the nature of the entertainment, it is quality of writing (or in roleplaying games, quality of design) that determines how enjoyable the experience will be. Given the choice, I’d rather play in a type II campaign run by a great GM than in a type III game run by a mediocre one; just as I’d rather watch The Twilight Zone than Star Trek: Voyager. It isn’t even a difficult choice.


This is the second in a two-part series on campaign structure. Read Campaign Structure Part I.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

This was a great newsletter, John.
I wonder, whether these 3 types are all there are. Anyway, what do you think about this now, after so many years and after teaching courses about campaign design?

Personally, I don't like type I and II. Type I is too short for character development, but can be fun once in a while. Type II on the other hand gives an illusion that there will be an all-emcompassing story and revelation, but after a while, it is the same again and again. More so in television than in roleplaying. For me, character development, setting changes, encompassing story is what gets me addicted.

Although Peter seems to think that the padding of a padded meta-cycle structure is just filler between beginning and end of an arc, I think that this is not entirely true. Let's see. The most fun I had was with campaigns structured into arcs. These arcs were made of by several 1-3 session adventures which had the same vibe, similar threats and stepped goals. After that arc came another arc (maybe there are some one-shots in-between). And although the content of one arc has not necessarily to do with the content of the next, the character development (and setting changes etc.) between those arcs were palpable.
In compairson with the expended meta-cycle structure, I find the short breaks between arcs refreshing.

I added a poll for this, as I'm very interested in what kind of campaign structure you all enjoy most (and sure, it could be different as a GM or a player).

 

[JohnnFour]

Each has their time and place.

The standalone would be good for a school campaign where your group is guaranteed to be stable for a semester or year.

The never-ending cycle is good when running a sequence of published adventures. It also keeps things simple, and for a busy or intermittent group, it can help keep things moving by avoiding complexity and lost detail due to memory or whatnot.

Right now I favour the Plotline approach described in the Adventure Building Master Game Plan with Treasure Table side-plots running in parallel.

I'm also less concerned about campaign structure nowadays. If I follow the players and have System, Story, and Setting react to their Choices, a campaign kind of takes care of itself.

And over the long periods of time campaigns span, managing structure does not add a whole extra to encounters and sessions. Instead, I prefer to make decisions for good gameplay and adventure building, and use Campaign Plotlines to keep an eye on long-term potentials.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

So, @ExileInParadise, you picked "Type IV: Other (please specify)" in the poll above. What kind of campaign do you prefer?

 

[ExileInParadise]

So, @ExileInParadise, you picked "Type IV: Other (please specify)" in the poll above. What kind of campaign do you prefer?

Nothing so formally defined - the old-fashioned hexcrawl where the party hares off after whatever shiny distraction seems interesting.
I've noticed a lot of emphasis on pre-planning "arcs" and definite session calendars with target dates to complete by blah blah.
Too much scheduling and TV series feel ... compared to just gaming until its done or you do something else.

 

[JohnnFour]

Agreed! It's amazing how this creeps into every corner of the GM Triangle if we're not vigilant.