Jim McClure's 8 Steps to Build an RPG Plot

Sourced from YouTube video:​ ​GM Academy Workshop #1: 8 Steps to Build a Plot
And updated based on​ ​Misdirected Mark Podcast #248 – 8 Steps to Build a Plot with Jim
McClure​ ​(Jim ​@GMJimMcClure​, Chris and Phil @
​ MisdirectedMark​)
Notes by Jen ​@Pixelscapes

Table of Contents
Step 1: Determine a meta-structure

Step 2: What is the dramatic situation(s)

Step 3: How long will the plot last

Step 4: Establish the participants

Step 5: What are the PCs trying to accomplish, what is standing in their way

Step 6: Establish the "set piece" scenes

Step 7: Building a finale

Step 8: Future plot tie-ins

Q&A from the video and then the podcast

Designing multiple story arcs?
How do you make your finale epic enough?
Has Jim’s stance on improv GMing changed?
How do you get players to come up with a common party drive?

Step 1: Determine a meta-structure

● Four basic types
○ Linear plot (planned by the GM, doesn't have to be the same as railroading)
○ Dungeon crawl
○ Mini sandbox (perhaps city sized, has walls)
○ Full sandbox (multiverse sized, still has walls)
● What experience will you be giving your players? Build from that foundation up.
Step 2: What is the dramatic situation(s)
● Georges Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations
● Others debate how many there are, but the point is, once you know your
meta-structure... you need to know what story you're telling. What story do you want
your players to experience?
● The situation is what causes the conflict between opposing forces.
● Key criterion: the sides can't both get what they want.

Step 3: How long will the plot last

● Need story arcs with a beginning and end.
● If you drag it on forever, you get player fatigue.
● Marketing studies show people are typically engaged for 12 to 15 hours in one story.
(Movies are the exception because they're so tuned to ~2 hours.)
○ Tabletop is slower so he strives for 16 to 20 hours per plot.
○ Depending how long you play, that could be 3 to 5 sessions.
● For a longer campaign, stack arcs.
○ So spend 3 to 5 on one arc, with the understanding that it will kick off the next
arc. Each problem had 3 or 4 steps to solve the problem, and then each solution
builds to the final conflict.
○ In this example, Phil didn't direct players which arc to pick -- he let them pick
("You need allies, you need an army, you need these tools....")
● Don't decide you're just going to play from now until forever.
○ They need finales, they need escalating and descalating tension. People are
subtly taught these concepts by other media.
○ When they don't get that, they don't necessarily realize it, they just know they
didn’t enjoy it so much.
○ They're missing something that they've been subconsciously taught is good
story.
Step 4: Establish the participants

● Jim uses the "7 items" rule for forces. People can keep about 7 items in mind.
(​reference​) Not absolute. He suggests starting there till you're comfortable with it and
then branch out from there.
● Chris uses 3 to 5 forces in his game, since he's more improvisational.
● Good, Bad, Neutral, and Wildcard forces.
○ Good/Bad is really protagonist and antagonist in relation to the party. But we're
saying Good/Bad to simplify the language of the explanation.
○ Wildcard: wanders through... Use to establish your next plot. More on this in step
8. The wildcard is one of the six other positions in another plot that has bled over
into this one.
○ These forces may be powerful groups, factions, or individuals. A force doesn't
have
○ to be people -- it could even be an event or a thing.
○ Force = ideology + objective.
● Your PCs could be in any of these slots.
● Note that the forces may present as good/bad and turn out to be the opposite. (Bad guys
usually present as good.)
● Basic strategy: The forces of good guys like each other and work together, but have
somewhat different goals and motives. Oppose the bad guys. Same for the opposite
side.
● To the neutral forces, arrows go only one way. They are just mixed up in the story.
Good/bad guys may try to affect the neutral forces or get the neutral forces invested on
their side.
● Example from running games, PCs show up in town and get a mission, like to catch Bad
Guy #1. They don't know BG #2 yet. As they explore the town, they find out there's a
merchant leader and a captain of the guard (both neutral, have their own things going
on). Guard might not like the good guys because they were hired in by the king to do
what he can't do. So either side can manipulate the neutrals to try and help them, but
neutrals are not invested.
● Neutral force should be on par power with the good/bad guys, affected by situation, but
not directly involved.
● For example, if it's just good guys trying to get item back, bad guys fight them, good
guys win, they come back... that is a very basic story, not much intrigue.
● Jim likes the 7 because it sets up additional conflict. You can have two good forces, and
they have the same ideology, or the same objective, but both don't align -- and they don't
both align with what the party is trying to do. So they're helpful, but there's still some
friction.
● The party can be both of the good forces, if they have different objectives or ideologies.
Same with the bad guys.
● Bad guy example, lich and his lieutenant share an objective: destroy this town. But
maybe the lich wants to kill everyone while the lieutenant would prefer that they escape.
● Neutral power example. You need carts to get through the forest. Cart vendor is neutral.
Now vie for the neutral power, but the neutral power is just a cart. Maybe the players
need money or to do a task, while the bad guys might sabotage the carts or steal them
to stop the players.
● Neutral power can be the outside influence that the good and bad guys need to interact
with to achieve their goal.
 ● Chris calls them motivations, needs, desires... if they're a faction doing their own thing...
If you know what they want and what they will/not do, you know how to play them
consistently. Gives depth, no mustache-twirling bad guys or Lawful Stupid paladins.

Step 5: What are the PCs trying to accomplish, what is standing in

their way
● Normally, your dramatic situation will answer some of that question, or all of that
question.
● Be especially careful in sandbox campaigns -- you still need a direct goal for the players.
● Then go to the antagonist's goal. What are they trying to do that is directly standing in
their way?
● You always want direct conflict between forces in the plot.
● Once you have that, you can see how the play sessions will play out.
● Chris suggests a Fate approach. If you have issues in the dramatic situation, ask
yourself questions about how to solve the issues, then drive play toward those questions
to get them answered. That way, you can push the players toward what they're trying to
accomplish. Also do that to figure out what the bad guys do to stand in their way and
why.
● What are the PCs trying to do and why? What are the bad guys trying to do and why?
● "because he's evil" doesn't build story. "because he's trying to use their souls to build a
portal to escape" does.
● Discussion about whether they like players planning aloud at the game table or not. It
depends what the planning is accomplishing. If the PCs are saying the cool things they
want to do to overcome the thing, that's fine, because it gives the GM the player's goals
and then the GM can focus on how to make it happen. But if they're just trying to
preemptively outwit what they think might be going on in the next scene, then that is just
trying to circumvent the actual discovery process and play of the game -- not much point
there, the GM is sitting right there and will set the challenge level however they want.
● As you think about this step, make the goal of the players and the goal of the people
standing in their way mutually exclusive. Both cannot succeed at what they're doing.
 (Otherwise they would be able to defuse tension.) The 36 situations are generally written
this way to build tension.

Step 6: Establish the "set piece" scenes

● Set pieces are the big events that happen in the story, the big scenes or events that are
going to happen to the PCs.
●
● You as GM want to make these set pieces grand, large, and memorable. More than just
a fight in the streets -- a big event.
● In the video, Jim says he uses a 4-act structure (traditionally 3-act, but he divides the
middle into two steps)
○ Act 1: Beginning and set-up, meet 7 participants, reveal set-up. Do this through
an encounter, something happens, big event.
○ Act 2: Furthering of intensity. Players getting everything they want (kicking ass,
getting info). The good guys start to engage the conflict and win.
○ Act 3: Villain comes back in force, strike back with reinforcements. (He adds this
step) Crush everything the PCs had done.
○ Act 4: Finale, everything from before ties together into the biggest set piece. PCs
overcome the new adversity, strike back, and finally achieve their goal (or not)
● In the podcast, Jim talks about the 3-act structure:
○ Act 1: Giving them basic information, getting them hooked on what they're doing,
and everything that needs to be established before the end. Establish that the
other opposing forces are there. All of the relevant information. Ideally also the
physical locations. When Act 1 ends, you should have a picture of what's going
on. MM points out ideally you can also foreshadow the twists.
○ Act 2:
■ Starts with the PCs winning, things going according to plan, they get
information, succeeding.
■ But in the second half of that act, the players are going to lose. But this
isn't just losing a combat encounter. Think about it narratively: what are
 the players trying to accomplish? Losing means they somehow fail to
accomplish that.
■ Example: players want to protect a town. Bad guys attack, kidnap the
king, take him away. You chase after, catch them (that's the first half).
Bad guys go, "Oh do you? Because I sent bombers to the dam, so you
can either chase me down, or go save the town." But, this choice only
matters if you established it in Act 1; have a setpiece at the dam, another
on the road.
■ In story structure with rising action etc., this is the falling action section.
○ Act 3: The players regroup, fight back up from the narrative low point, to the
finale. And the finale is step 7.

Step 7: Building a finale

● How you make your game feel epic. The biggest of the set pieces. What they've been
driving to.
● Tie all the prior set pieces together.
● All 7 primary forces should be involved in the finale. They help, they get hurt, they
change sides.
● There needs to be something on the line -- which is defined already by your dramatic
situation. The finale answers the question of what happens with the dramatic situation
and the thing on the line.
● Follow step-by-step and it naturally happens, since forces have been bargaining with
each other for power.
● It's driven by faction motivation, plot, and should give them their sense of completion and
accomplishment.
● You should always build toward a finale. It'll have to change but always, always build to
one.
● Important! The players must be the ones to resolve the finale. Not one of the other
forces. It must be based on the players actions, they have to determine it, or they feel
cheated.
 ● To put it another way, we are going to fight the impossible big bad... we get to the final
fight, it kicks our ass... and then some terrible GMPC sweeps in and saves them. So the
players can't decide the outcome to their own story.
● Then you can start the next arc.

Step 8: Future plot tie-ins

● Wildcard (see step 4) has two functions:
○ Seeds the next thing that happens.
○ Adds uncertainty to the story.
● Somebody, organization, or symbol that doesn't seem to fit with everyone else.
● PCs wondered about the mystery, but it didn't seem tied to anything else yet. Then you
bring it back up and they go "Wait, so what is this about?"
● One of the six other roles from a different plot, lets them dig into that next plot.
● That gives them the sense that the world is growing bigger and bigger, that the world is
alive.
● The next story has its own wildcard, and so on.
● Then you circle around to the beginning and start again at step 1. Players get a sense of
a giant interconnected world.
● Types of wildcards:
○ Person out of place that they remember and get a callback.
○ Other event happening in the world outside the current plot arc, not as relevant or
important-seeming as the current issue.
○ Maybe it's someone uninvolved who helps resolve the current situation, then
pops up again later.
● Jim gives an example. Everyone they were killing had a weird red coin on them, and it
wasn't important to that story arc, but they were really puzzled about it. That was the
tie-in to the next story.
● When doing a longer campaign, Jim doesn't plan the next arc until the current arc is
finishing. He'll pick a subplot to tie into the overall meta-story, then tie that into the
overall finale-finale of meta-stories.
 ● If executed properly, it's amazing. For example, Jim's L5R campaign built up over 3
years to the final fight, and it happened exactly how he wanted... crying... hatred for the
big bad... everything was there. Very satisfying to deliver exactly what he was trying to
deliver.
● Check out the book​ "​Plotto: The Master Book of All Plots" by William Wallace Cook. How
to outline 16-chapter books and then write them very quickly.
● On improv and modifying meta-plot structure
○ If you want a more improv-style game, okay, what did they do in act 1? What did
they find most interesting? That's what you have to bring back later. What's the
dramatic situation they're going for?
○ Once you know these pieces, you can use it to tell any type of story you want,
serious or not, improv or not.
○ Phil points out he followed this for a long time and so well that it got boring for
him as a GM. That's why he went to more improv. It's a great system though.
○ Jim says what he does to keep it fresh for him is, let me break the mold this way,
that way, let's change the length of the arc, change the number of forces, how do
I make that work? You have to challenge yourself.
○ Phil added mechanical clocks and countdowns to take decisionmaking away from
himself as a GM. He'd set it up but not control the outcome, just see what
happens.

Q&A from the video and then the podcast

Designing multiple story arcs?

● Youtube: How do you design multiple story arcs. 4, 5 sessions and then go from there?
● Guiding structure is finale of finales. He figures he has a big finale each year. So he
focuses on, how do I make something interesting or engaging for this 15 to 20 hours.
● If I make something engaging, not everyone will die... some characters will survive, while
they pursue the next wildcard into the next plot. Each plot has survivors.
● By the time we get to the finale of finales, it builds itself from the survivors of the previous
plots -- they fit into the 7 roles of step 4. Tag team match vs. PCs in finale of finales.
 ● You don't have to be that intentional of "I'm gonna get here"... you can go plot to plot and
get inspiration as it comes. As long as they're engaged, you'll have plenty of material by
the time you get there.

How do you make your finale epic enough?

● Youtube: Within the finale, what is the ultimate goal of the set piece? How can you make
it epic enough?
● Go for 100% player immersion in character. Investment in the story.
● Sure, you could have the volcano erupt or epic setting... but what you really want is
engagement and thread tie-in from everything that happened previously in the plot.
● What he really wants is an emotional reaction from the players. There's no direct answer
to that, but you have to feel out your players and give them structure. See what they're
doing, what they're not doing, who they're engaging with. Then use that to legitimately tie
back together into one true moment of conflict.

Has Jim’s stance on improv GMing changed?

● Podcast: Ang asks, Jim, has your stance on improv GMing changed?
● Jim puts 2 or 3 hours of prep into a 16-20 hour game. Story and location fluidity makes
prep very easy. If you're going to run into an NPC, he is wherever you go... but that's an
entire other topic. All Jim's games, every piece of it is like that.
● Chris points out Schrodinger's Plot Point is arguably a form of railroading.
● Jim respectfully disagrees. Maybe they'll cover that in some future episode!
● Jim says he does enjoy improv GMing, but in his mind there's always prep going on.
Example, Tearable RPG. It goes crazy quickly, you can't really plan. But what he does is
in-game prep. He's doing it off the cuff, but looking at what the players are doing and
putting it into the formula, and keeping it moving. What he's not doing is being
reactionary, he's being proactive to guide them into the story.
● Chris says that is improv: building upon what is thrown down.
● Jim says when he runs an improv game, act 1 is an improv game. By then he has them
hooked on the story he's decided should be told, and then they typically follow along with
that.
● Chris says he focuses on having the players answer the question of what happens.
How do you get players to come up with a common party drive?
● Podcast: Jim Jerrymander asks, Jim, getting disparate players to come up with a
common drive has been tough for my recent group. Some have goals and motivations
that are perpendicular to the party.
● Jim has two answers for this:
○ #1. On the first play session, tell them: the rule is this. Here's the dramatic
situation. You will bring a character who's interested in completing that dramatic
situation. If that character isn't interested? That's fine, set that character aside
and roll up someone who's interested. The player decides _why_ they're
interested in resolving the plot, not if. ("That's the mean side of Jim." They like it!)
That said, there are things the GM has to do. Set that expectation. Tell them, this
is the game we're going to play. Tell them before you start. And don't trick them
by changing what kind of game it is.
○ #2. The party may become these two different good forces, but they still need to
drive to the same thing. Use in character and out of character coaching on this.
"Tell the party why you want to do this? Explain it in character." Then outside the
session, check with the player and say "hey, your character seems uninterested
in this castle. That's the direction we're going, so is this the character you want to
play?" Because as the GM, I should be folding all these motivations into the
story.
● Clarifying the question: They were designing their characters and doing cooperative
worldbuilding at the same time.
● Chris says, the important thing to understand is what issues the players want to deal with
in the game and make sure they're aligned somehow, that they connect somehow. The
goals/motivations have to align somehow. Ask questions about the disparate things that
push toward how these things work together.
● Phil says this comes out of the Session Zero. How their goals relate together. Otherwise
you could have aimless or competing characters.

If you found Jim’s advice helpful:

● Thank ​@GMJimMcClure​ on Twitter!
● Go back the ​Satanic Panic RPG​ on Kickstarter (I had the privilege of playing this last
year, it’s great)
● See other offerings from ​Third Act Publishing​, including the excellent RPG Reflections