Still no luck getting jobs, though I am still trying.

Since my college preparation is for the fall semester, my eagerness puts me ahead of the curve. At least one of the classes that I want/need to take hasn't been scheduled. Which is a problem because it's a co-requisite with another class, so I can't sign up for either class until it gets scheduled.

On the gaming front, one thing that surprised me is that I have a surprising recall of the plot I had done for my old Transformers adventure Attack of the Retcons. Though I admit that a chunk of that was how depressingly linear it was. Go to place from Transformers canon, fight Retcons who are at that location, talk to NPC who tells you the next location in the plot, repeat as needed.

Scene 1

Location: Autobot base on one of Saturn's moon.

Retcons attack

Analysis of Retcon wreckage reveals that they were manufactured on Planet Junk, home of Wreck-Gar and the Junkions.

Scene 2

Location: Planet Junk, where a factory has been built to produce Retcons.

Fight Retcons as they come off the assembly line

Wreck-Gar reveals that the Quintessons forced him to build the factory.

Scene 3

Location: Quintessa, home planet of the Quintessons.

Fight Retcons protecting the Quintessons.

The Quintessons reveal that they got the Retcon time weapon technology from the wreckage of Unicron

Scene 4

Location: Unicron's head

Fight Retcons and destroy the Time Core that Unicron is going to use to retcon his body back into existence.

Very linear and damned little variety of encounter. The retcon mechanics were the only really fun thing. At certain points in the very boring, theater of the mind, run them out of hit points fights, a character would get an index card revealing a new ability or stat boost. If the character took enough damage, they got replaced with another character and the process starts over.

If I wanted to keep as much of that structure in place, I could replace the simple fights with different tactical objectives. Instead of destroying the Retcons that just jumped off the assembly line, the scene instead becomes about the process of shutting the factory down. Dealing with the Quintessons can involve a rescue mission (they were holding certain Junkions hostage to get Wrecck-Gar's compliance) or breaking into their audience chamber (which can include the famous "letting themselves get captured so they can listen to the villain monologue").

I don't know that they opening and closing scenes should change much. A simple fight at the beginning lets the players get comfortable with their characters and the mechanics of the game, as well as introducing the threat of the adventure. The final scene revolves around the Time Core, so it's not just squads of Retcons again.

 Just a lovely brainstorm

The Combat Hack

 I've been doing some thinking about player choice/agency. Part of that is this Twitter post that I found as a meme that really encapsulates what a lot of people (myself included) would likely take thousands of words to express.

Another thought, somewhat related to the meme, is that combat is really all of this writ small. Especially in a system where there are a lot of rules and options centered on combat. In a combat scene, or even a combat round, these three criteria constantly come up. So combat is an area where players (seemingly) have constant agency.

But I think that stands in contrast to a lot of RPG plots/modules, which are typically very linear, if not railroads.

One thing that I'm surprised I haven't discussed here is the difference between "if" and "how" in RPG plot construction. When preparing a one-shot, as I have often been doing, you do wind up doing more railroading to make sure that the session reaches a satisfying conclusion in the time allotted. A lot of RPG mechanics are designed around the question of "if." For example, we often roll dice to determine "if" the character succeeds at an action.

But if you're writing a linear scenario, whether for a one-shot or for your corporate overlords, "ifs" create roadblocks, branching paths, and other extra work, which should be avoided whenever possible. The better option is "how." Rather than asking "if" something happens that the adventure needs in order to proceed, ask your players "how" they make it through the challenge.

This can be very freeform. I remember the Cthulhu-Trek scenarios that I played at DunDraCon all those years back were very linearly structured, but exactly how the group addressed the challenges was very much decided by the group. I remember looking back on those sessions and thinking that I had been tricked, because "if" was never the actual question. It was always "how."

Looking at RPG combat, I see a lot of the same thing. No matter how much it's framed as an "if" situation (Can Our Heroes win this battle?), all of the balancing mechanics and "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards and GMs just pulling their punches, the overriding question of a combat scene is actually "how" (What combination of powers, spells and dice results are going to let Our Heroes win?).

Circling back to what I hope was my original point, combat offers players agency within the confines of its mechanical structure. In a railroady adventure, this limited agency acts to paper over the lack of agency regarding the overarching plot. Especially now that it's part of my adventure writing toolkit, it becomes something that I can't unsee when I read a published adventure.