I've had the best success by listening to the players and taking things one step at a time.

When two early players wanted to patrol the streets, and some randomly encountered gangsters peeked their interest, it turned into a larger adventure against organized crime. But it wasn't a preplanned story arc.

When I knew one player really wanted to go up against a rampaging apatosaurus, it wasn't long before the 400-HP animal walked out of the Cretaceous. I don't remember the explanation for the enounter, but it was a fun session for us all--and it wasn't part of a larger master plan. One player was often fond of saying: "Not everything needs to tie together."

Some modules are very good at creating a well-rounded story arc that can adapt to the players' actions. Picking the right scenario is key. The story arc has to unfold, and make sense, no matter what the characters' actions might be. Unless the characters are captured or trapped, I don't want them to feel dragged along.

John wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 8:04pm:


John, I'm not sure I follow your initial post. To me, taking things issue-by-issue is the opposite of having a camaign divided into major story arcs. I guess I think that means that the adventures tend to be one-at-a-time and unconnected instead of fitting together under four story arc umbrellas.

And having major thematic story arcs seems more like "writing for the trade." At least nowdays, the major publishers seem to make a point of having multi-year story arcs, with many individual adventures that all fit in to the big picture or story package.

It's not a criticism of the appoach, I guess I'm not sure I follow which two methods you're contrasting. Is it possible that your campaign actually combines both types instead of favoring one over the other?

John wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 10:47pm:


Well then I think the major story arc approach is different from the issue-by-issue approach I was thinking of (which means everything doesn't tie into one bigger theme).

1. To me, issue-by-issue means that you have adventures that don't wrap together under one major arc. Most of these issue-by-issue adventures didn't lead together into one big story arc in the 1970s. When they did, it was an exception. This might be like the b/w Essential repritings Marvel sells today or the Showcase issues of DC, 30 issues in a row, some one-shot stories, some multi-part stories, but no overarching theme.

2. The beginning, middle, end approach sounds like you do one module at a time, then move on (like isolated mini-series). That's really common in a dungeon-dweller approach to RPGs; when you head back outside, the monsters stay underground and the party goes home. This might be like the color-reprints of the Kree-Skrull War or Secret Wars.

3. But a major story arc, with many adventures under one umbrella sounds like its own thing. Major story arcs, with lots of foreshadowing and interwoven adventures seem much more common in comics now than they were in the 1970s, as Marvel and DC announce and package series that way. To me, this is the approach that today sounds like writing for the trade: 52, Secret Wars, Dark Reign.

It was confusing to hear the term story arc in contrast to beginning/middle/end because a story arc usually means that there is a beginning/middle/end--that's the arc, whether it takes place over one issue or many.