When I play scenarios, one element I often find lacking is credible motivations attached to the principal parties involved. In my opinion, the “why” is as least as interesting, if not more interesting, than the “what”. Far too often however designers gloss over the “why”, if even paying it any attention at all. If you want to improve the quality of your scenario, one of my suggestions is to focus in on this element, and answer these three questions -
- Why does the party undertake the scenario?
This one tends to simultaneously be the hardest to answer well, while being the least problematic in such a respect. The question is — why does the party risk their life and sanity to undertake whatever death defying mission this time? Most scenarios, unfortunately, give the answer “because you felt like it.” Given that people PLAY Blades of Exile because they feel like adventuring, this isn’t that problematic. Still, I find that scenarios that provide an alternative explanation gain a step on the others. The most common mechanism is to force the party to become involved, such as through catastrophic events (E.g. the ship wrecks in either Islands of the Wheel or On a Ship to Algiers) or through some compulsion by higher forces — for example presuming the party is in a military structure, and receives new orders. However, if you’re planning a scenario, I’d advise not just jumping to either of these alternatives. They’re okay, but they have been used a good deal. Instead, try to think of something original.
- Why the party?
Not all scenarios run into this problem, but those that do encounter it, and fail to solve it, suffer greatly. Essentially, in many scenarios, the party is given a mission by some third party to solve — the question becomes — Why choose the party? This is especially problematic for circumstances where the overarching force would have logically no need for the party — why would the Empire EVER need to hire muscle, for example? Overcoming this isn’t impossible, but the question must be answered on some level. A Small Rebellion works from a simple espionage level — it makes sense the Empire would hire outsiders to infiltrate rebels. Tatterdemalion works thanks to the politics of the situation — the three groups won’t accept anyone other than novices. One of the main reasons I introduced the traitor in Of Good And Evil was to provide a justification for continuing to use the party — among other reasons, you’re chosen because your group is one of the few groups Genmar knows it can trust.
- Why the problem?
By far the most important of the three, why is the problem occurring? This usually translates into why is the villain doing what he or she is doing? The better answer you can give to this, the better your scenario will be. Don’t just knee jerk and say, “Well, they’re pure evil.” or “A mad Lich has gone insane.” To illustrate this problem, compare the three original scenarios. The excellent A Small Rebellion is VERY well defined. Each side’s motives are well developed, detailed, and complex. The Valley of the Dying Things is fair — an old mage’s guild that has run down and is polluting the region. A decent idea, that’s main strength lies in that it is atypical. Finally there is The Zakhazi Run, a fun, but ultimately only mediocre scenario. Why are the Sliths attacking the fort? Why, they’re Sliths of course, and all Slith societies are, and always will be, perpetually at war with all Human societies. Not particularly interesting in my book. This question doesn’t end with the main thrust of the plot, but instead extends to every side dungeon and minor quest. Why are the adversaries there? Why are they opposing the party? Sometimes this question can be answered simply — to protect their lair and/or treasure. Sometimes the question requires a more complicated answer.
|