Story-driven RPs: Linear or Open?

Note: this doesn't apply to sandbox RPs, since those are innately meant to be open and free for the players. As a player in a story-based RP with a predetermined plot, do you prefer to have specific 'stages' in the storyline, where events, settings and NPCs appear similarly to a Dungeons & Dragons-like setting? Or do you instead prefer to be given a general setting to operate in, along with some optional objectives that follow the general direction of the story?

It depends on the context I guess. If it's a journey RP then obviously you need to let go of that leash and let me spend three posts to catch some mons on Route 4, and backtrack a route for a sidequest if that's a thing. In general though I like being told what to do, as it gives my writings a clear sense of direction of where I want it to go. It also keeps the ship tight and running when the RP nudges the players (harshly, maybe) to keep to plot chugging along

Bit of both is always best, because you're bound to draw a mixed crowd.
Add plot and structure for players that like the premise but cant/dont want to create their own storylines within the world you've created. Then also leave space for the creativity of players who just want to do their own thing, while still mixing with those who are following the 'main plot'

I like being bossed around but I also like to have the freedom to do what I want (within reason) to get to that point. So a good mix of both I suppose, since without some help in navigating I tend to get lost and spiral out of control.

I think questions like these are really a case-by-case basis because of the multiple ways each method could be interpreted by a game master. If I gave you an either-or answer as the question stands, it'd likely be bogged down by my own projected expectations; since you've already associated the former with 'D&D,' I'm immediately given a high-fantasy vibe, and I would subconsciously judge the method on those grounds, not the method itself. (Imagining a high-fantasy, 'stage'-paced roleplay, I'd likely link that to some sort of quest scenario, etc.)

I think it'd be easier for me to judge with examples of how each method has been implemented in the past. Could anyone share some roleplays with linearly-progressing stories, and perhaps some experiences within them?

mister modified shotgun said:

As a player in a story-based RP with a predetermined plot, do you prefer to have specific 'stages' in the storyline, where events, settings and NPCs appear similarly to a Dungeons & Dragons-like setting? Or do you instead prefer to be given a general setting to operate in, along with some optional objectives that follow the general direction of the story?

Click to expand...

Yes. :^)

Junier said:

I think it'd be easier for me to judge with examples of how each method has been implemented in the past. Could anyone share some roleplays with linearly-progressing stories, and perhaps some experiences within them?

Click to expand...

I guess I could share two examples that I partook in; Kiyo's OTM and Dragon's Stars of Destiny which I think fit the two methods Fox presented respectively.

Despite seeming like it would fit with the former method (the general setting with optional objectives), I always thought OTM fit that D&D setting with its heavy fixation on NPCs and GM posts orchestrating events for our characters. The plot ensured it wasn't too predictable or restrictive as it was riddled with objectives, and a few were needed to open up subplots that could be layered onto the main story. These felt like they accentuated the dynamics, allowed immersion to be more organic, and - probably the most important aspect - it rewarded players for their own intuition when they pursued secrets based on subtext. As a result, I was given an initiative to like care about the RP itself and not just focus on my own character.

Interestingly, though the opportunity to uncover some deep mystery could be easily dismissed by a player, I never thought there were any "optional" objectives since the focus was always kept on our characters earning that cash by performing menial tasks for some lame 50's styled bistro and appeasing a bunch of furries. This kept the pacing consistent, and just made it so that our character's actions had actual repercussions and impacts on the narrative without drastically altering its course to a point there's no longer coherency.

On the other hand, Stars followed the latter method of having a more open-ended environment. The end goal was almost more ambitious than OTM's as it focused on tackling a rite of passage, making the story written like a coming-of-age story - OTM's was strictly based on our character's motivation to make cash, a relatively mundane goal in comparison. Though this doesn't mean I thought of either as boring.

There was definitely more leeway for exploration since a lot of mechanics were basically left optional and there were seemingly no repercussions when neglecting them. For example: I recall our characters being separated into teams that would compete through the same areas. Though there was consideration for pacing and keeping everyone on the same track (one of rules actively discouraged players from jumping ahead), the cooperation immediately felt non-mandatory since nothing was really enforcing characters to do so. This was seemed apparent when almost every player immediately booked to the next route.

Unfortunately Stars died rather prematurely, so it was difficult to say what kind of direction Stars would have ended up taking. But I do remember the entire set-up favored more to tailoring itself specifically to our characters' convenience rather than providing an organic means of conveying the story. The freedom cost the RP to lack its own independent drive, I felt; it was almost borderline a sandbox despite clearly having a set objective that went from point A to point B.


Anyways, those were my personal experiences. After going through my own viewpoint, it feels like to me the biggest difference between these two methods lies in the GM's way of planning out for their story driven-RP, which is why I'm curious about why almost everyone is leaning towards "bit of both".

I'd actually like if others shared their own experiences with RPs that use these methods, if only to compare perspectives.

Ech said:

I guess I could share two examples that I partook in; Kiyo's OTM and Dragon's Stars of Destiny which I think fit the two methods Fox presented respectively.

Click to expand...

I agree that 'Off The Menu' fits more in-line with Fox's first defined method. I saw it as having two plot lines working hand-in-hand: the underlying intrigue moments hinting at future climax, as well as the 'Cornered'-inspired "work-your-shift" scenario.

From my experience as a reader, there was potential freedom for character subplots, but I also feel within such a controlled cast and setting there would be less purpose for them. Not only was the roleplay laid out to encourage focus on the task at hand, there were incentives to working in the manner Kiyo intended, being productive in-character and out-of-character. Did you receive this impression as a participant? Could it have been a drawback, even? The impression I get from earlier responses — the "mix of both"s that you mentioned — is that the option of having a character reach their own peak of development separate from the central plot is important to many people, at least in concept. I think complying too much in the department of letting characters "do their thing" may have lent itself to 'Stars of Destiny"'s air of negligibility that you described, where the plot feels "optional."

Speaking of which, I'm actually surprised you mentioned 'Stars' as an example of linear storytelling, in a positive way. Based on how the roleplay 'advertised' itself, so to speak, as a member of the Pokemon journey subgenre, I think it would be easier for many to dismiss it or any of its peers as q purely unambitious and unmonitored sandbox — whether out of appreciation of the genre as light fun, or out of disdain that its contemporaries rarely strive to do more. And while I sympathize with both attitudes, I think the ability to discuss journey roleplays in the same vein as anything else — not alleviating it from "higher standards" (if forum roleplayers can even have those, lol) — and celebrate any creative mechanics or concepts they do utilize is refreshing!

Foxrally said:

As a player in a story-based RP with a predetermined plot, do you prefer to have specific 'stages' in the storyline, where events, settings and NPCs appear similarly to a Dungeons & Dragons-like setting?

Click to expand...

I like that option, myself. The plot and events are directed this way.
The other option feels too loose to me, like there's no plan or plot thread.

Junier said:

From my experience as a reader, there was potential freedom for character subplots, but I also feel within such a controlled cast and setting there would be less purpose for them. Not only was the roleplay laid out to encourage focus on the task at hand, there were incentives to working in the manner Kiyo intended, being productive in-character and out-of-character. Did you receive this impression as a participant? Could it have been a drawback, even?

Click to expand...

I suppose I did get that impression. As for it being a drawback? Honestly, I feel it's personally easier and much more inspiring to write when we need to adhere to the RP's own limited narrative, as opposed to just going on a whim and having far too much freedom at hand. I imagine many would immediately assume such form of conduct as "strict", but for me that term is exclusive for people who excessively cavil regarding their own material; Kiyo did the exact opposite and went out of his way to integrate every part of our character into his own coherent plot in a very organic manner, and by doing so I felt myself (and hopefully the other players) more engaged. Because of the GM's own attentiveness and consideration of his own cast, the RP never made it feel as though we were just writing out a novella for the person in charge.

Junier said:

The impression I get from earlier responses — the "mix of both"s that you mentioned — is that the option of having a character reach their own peak of development separate from the central plot is important to many people, at least in concept.

Click to expand...

Oh, if that's what everyone meant, I wholeheartedly concur. It's important—essential even—for characters to preserve their own individuality. But on that note, I never thought it's considered good design to make any RP (linear, sandbox or otherwise) to overlook and neglect its cast in such a way. I feel any GM that refuses ample room for their own cast to develop in favor of keeping the focus entirely on the narrative is actively impairing their own project, since the story loses out the elements that would make it diverse. Not to mention, it's restricting players for no justifiable reason.

And as for Stars, I'm glad you didn't immediately label my outlook on the RP as harsh; I feel as though I may have a bit too hard, when in reality I wanted to really point out the things I liked while addressing the issues that irked me and ultimately hindered my motivation from continuing. And yes, I honestly do think Journeys should have some reassessments. For all the endless jokes people seem to make about them (prior to my sign up for Stars, literally everyone and their moms told me Journeys suck), it's really odd that this format still gets recycled without any real revision.

Ech said:

I imagine many would immediately assume such form of conduct as "strict", but for me that term is exclusive for people who excessively cavil regarding their own material...

Click to expand...

I too feel limitation is, to a light and likely subconscious degree, "stigmatized" here, if only because I've just shifted priorities from a different site where the prevailing opinion was total opposite. On a discussion thread regarding open-world sandbox-type roleplays, many people preferred linear roleplays, to the point where they pushed back against sandboxes; they seemed too open-ended to them, and the game master's role too minuscule. Foreignness would have played a part, simply because sandboxes were little to none there, compared to here on PC where I think it's safe to say the vast majority fall into that category. Nevertheless, it's easy to compare the pushback against open-world roleplays and their scarcity there with the more timid disassociation with linearity here. I'd say, in both environments, variety would help. The best way to get people to appreciate a sort of roleplay is to really just make the roleplay! And some increased prevalence of non-sandboxes on PC would just help to add diversity to the Theatre.

But limitation can be essential in maintaining motivation. A lot of the sandboxes I've dropped were because I didn't have the muse -- you described the sensation very well: "...writing a novella for the person in charge," combined with the fact that the novella doesn't even need to be read, and there's no acknowledgement that it ever was. And "muse," in my opinion, shouldn't be a concern in what is inherently collaborative writing; roleplaying keeps me engaged and creative when I'm not solo-writing, so bringing the qualms of solo-writing into roleplaying with complete open-endedness (i.e. a writing prompt, really, except I need to submit an app for it) contradicts me indulging in the hobby at all. In summary, I can definitely sympathize and agree with your opinion on full plot flexibility coming round to bite a roleplay in the ass!

And as for Stars, I'm glad you didn't immediately label my outlook on the RP as harsh; I feel as though I may have a bit too hard, when in reality I wanted to really point out the things I liked while addressing the issues that irked me and ultimately hindered my motivation from continuing. And yes, I honestly do think Journeys should have some reassessments. For all the endless jokes people seem to make about them (prior to my sign up for Stars, literally everyone and their moms told me Journeys suck), it's really odd that this format still gets recycled without any real revision.

Click to expand...

Feedback should never be automatically associated with severity; it oftentimes comes from a good place.

And journeys in their present state are really the fast food of this forum; they're mass-produced, everyone knows it's bad for them, and they consume it anyway because there's nothing better on the way home. Or they're the poor saps who treat every visit to the drive-thru like an event because they haven't learned the hard way yet, lol.

Of course, I did join 'Past of the Past,' despite it being a roleplay that relies on muse which I just said I hated, despite it being a journey which a paragraph ago I compared to low-effort, sloppily-prepared, guilt-full indulgence. Maybe my will to write overwhelms reason. Maybe it's masochism?

But finally, going back to the 'character subplots vs. overarching plot' idea again, I'm working on a project at the moment that would benefit from hearing perspectives on the topic, and responses would surely fall in line with the sort of "theme" of the thread. Basically, what's the best way a balance can be stricken between a plot that's player-driven and game master-constructed? How can characters' actions feel organic while ensuring progression, and how can a game master craft a story without dragging their players into reenacting forced scenarios?

I don't have a preference either way. Sometimes it's nice to have a clear direction to follow whilst other times I enjoy the freedom to do anything I want. I'm finding right now I'm really enjoying how Z gives us a really good mix of the freedom to do pretty much anything with a clearly directed plot with missions and set stages.