I would recommend the podcast Film Reroll to anyone who wants to see this in action. They start from the point of the movie, then let dice rolls and in-character improv decisions reshape the story. That's how Jafar fell in love with Aladdin, Dorothy rained dragon fire upon the armies of Oz and James Bond died.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
3060 readers
49 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They use GURPS! Interesting.
It's the system for when you want to roleplay literally everything ever. And if they don't have a rule the story would need, they just figure one out.
It's ONE system that works reasonably well for human like characters. There are dozens of others that do the same.
Sounds fucking awesome and so much like dnd.
Easy. Its not possible. Because there would be only 2 ways to keep a full storyline intact from start to finish, like if you wanted to redo lotr. Either your players pick exactly the right thing to go to the right next place, or you force them there.
Thats why I never plan more than 2 or 3 sessions in advance. The more I plan, the more I will either force upon my players or lose if they go batshit.
Even baldur's gate 3 with all of his possibilities and interactions can only go so far off the path. And its also why I prefer homebrew to campaigns, both as a player and a DM. I feel like modules are way closer to telltales games than a homebrew games with the choices available and their consequences.
And please dont say a dm can make a module be as opened as a homebrew. Because then the module becomes the starting point, but not the finish line as it will be the DM finishing the rails the players chose to ride to whatever destination they pick.
You didn't read the article, did you?
- It is possible, and he explained how in only 3 steps.
- He does not want the storyline intact. He recommends the opposite.
- He adapts to get a scenario, not a script. The finish line is the objective. The route doesn't matter.
- He referenced adapting Lord of the Rings in a previous article and linked to it, so you picked a bad example.
Everything else you said was just irrelevant.
Yup. Never noticed the article, only saw the single line he bothered to post on this website.
But please, if it's only 3 steps, tell me then. Should be easy. How do I take Lord of the rings and make a campaign out of it while following it to a certain extend ? Because I doubt it's possible without intense railroading OR insane luck.
It's an interesting article, you should read it. You're thinking of too direct a translation. The idea is that you strip out all of the events, and just adapt the scenario. For Lord of the Rings, the important part is that the One Ring exists, and it needs to be taken to Mt. Doom to be destroyed. Everything in between there is a complete sandbox.
You can then pull in lots of characters and places from the books, but they will almost certainly all show up out of order as your players won't take the same route that they did in the books.
The OP article talks more about the steps to adapt a scenario including a Star Wars example, but here's the LotR one: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/47543/roleplaying-games/ask-the-alexandrian-7-classic-quests-are-railroads
@melmi @sammytheman666 Yeah, like Council of Elrond is probably Session 0 or Session 1, the alternative to "you meet in a tavern".
Then there's every chance that they run off to try and recruit Saruman as biggest baddest wizard right off the bat, and suddenly you're thinking about where his plans are that early.
So Im right then ? It can be a starting point, but you cannot follow a story closely without intense railroading or insane luck.
But I agree. You can adapt a UNIVERSE with characters and places and even events if possible.
But then thats not new. We DMs have been stealing ideas left and right for generations for our own stories. Sticking to one universe is another way to do it.
But it would feel... forced for me. Like if you met Aragorn. The players know what he should be doing, so does he forget this and stick to the uneased players not happy to stear that part of the story, or does he only do a cheap cameo ? Thats assuming they know the story, which might be a no too since the movie is like 20 years old now.
No one was saying that you should follow a story exactly. That wouldn't be very interesting imo, even if it was possible.
I feel like the most interesting way to do it would be to have it very explicitly in an alternate timeline. You could do this by killing a main character, or by otherwise having a major divergence. Then it feels less like just stealing ideas and more like a "What If?" story, and would help nip the urge to follow the story too closely.
I seem to recall a podcast or comic or something that was this but in a Star Wars universe, that opened with Luke Skywalker dying and the podcast/comic characters taking over for him. I tried to look it up but I can't find anything about it now. Wish I'd remembered the name.
Yeah, a starting point is doable
Still waiting.
For what? The article is right there and someone already summed it up for you. If you're not going to engage with the basic subject of conversation, then leave the conversation. Especially if everyone else already left.
Yeah thats what I thought.
Did you think, though? I get that you didn't read the article, but you at least had to have read the other guy's comment that explained it to you already. I don't know why you insist on me telling you this information for the third time.
This is getting boring