Hai.

I am quite sure this has come up before but since the search function sucks I couldn't find any threads about it.

I am trying to wrap my head around the way that WFRP3 structures stories, namely episosodes & acts (and rally steps). I get the overal structure, it is very much the same structure used by film makers after all, but I fail to get the implementation of this in my game mastering. Sure, I can sort my adventures or what not in three acts easy enough but I feel that I am mearly going through the motions withouth any real understanding, which is annoying as you might imagine.

I am tempted to disregard this completely but since it is hard-wired into the systems I really want to "get it".

I guess the whole issue, for me, is based round the fact that I, as a GM, managed fine without this particular method of structuring my games and now my inner child rebels at having to learn something new which I do not really see the benefit for.

So, how are you guys managing this issue? Is it even an issue for you? Help me get it, please.

I went through the same "resistance" period too - having GM'd games for many years without the structure.

I've tried playing in a number of ways:

1. Without any story structure (except my own).

2. With rally steps only (for brief pauses in the action and/or natural story pauses)

3. With the 3 Act structure and Episodes (as close to RAW as possible)

My experiences:

The obvious upside of (1) is that this is what I'm used to - however players became confused by Action cards and other mechanics that indicated they could be used in Rally Steps and/or end of an Act or Encounter. This lead me to method (2), where I had to houserule when these effects took place and the result was somewhat messy and unsatisfying (not that there isn't a good solution out there, I just couldn't figure out a streamlined one). Rally steps in (2) felt a bit contrived - and players were like, "what? Rally step? Now?" or "Can we get a Rally step now?".

You might get that I'm leading you toward (3) - it's because I am. When I learned to restructure my stories to fit an Act Structure (or minimally, a 3 Act structure), not only was there little confusion about when abilities could be used, but I found my GMing became tighter. Before, players waffled about at times, moving about aimlessly (sometimes, because I didn't really know what was going to happen next until they made some decisions) - but having a set of (somewhat interchangable) Acts in front of me helped me to drive the story forward and give some direction without "railroading" the players. I feel like the players "accomplish more" in less time - as the Act structure encourages me to move things along.

In summary - I've adopted the Episode/Act structure in my gaming, and while it took me a bit of time to adjust my style for the structure, I believe my WFRP games have benefited from it.

Good gaming.

Thanks a lot for your insights gsoul!

I had trouble with this at first (that and the fact that "encounter" is never really defined either..even in the GM's toolkit).

Here's what I was thinking when I first started:

Weeks and days should line up with acts and episodes right and rules should abide by that right? Wrong.

Episodes are simply what is defined in the adventure you're running and the same goes for an act. An act may be several days or several hours. An episode may be one day or it may be a month.

With some rules saying "once per day" that can sometimes be difficult to determine (just the way that some of the scenarios are laid out). That's why I've removed "weeks" and "days" from any rule descriptions:

e.g. Luckstone: maybe used once per week...now I rule once per SESSION ( I don't use episodes much for definitions..yet)

e.g. Healing draught: may be used once per day..now I rule once per ACT

Best of luck,

Jay h

Here's my rule of thumb:

If the session were an episode of a TV series, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, whenever there would be a commercial break, that's a Rally Step. Any time the scene is about to change, the tension rises, some new twist is introduced, time for a Rally Step.

I let the Rally Steps define the Acts rather than vice versa.

GravitysAngel said:

That's a good way of looking at it!

Also be aware that even FFG doesn't stick to the Episodes/Acts model when it doesn't fit their needs.

GravitysAngel said:

That's definitely the way to do it in my opinion. I think the 'official structure' is a very helpful guide for new/not-confident GMs trying to put together material to make a story and, importantly, in giving them the support to push an adventure forward and not get stuck.

But if you're confident / experienced / brimming with ideas and you have players that will drive the story forwards themselves through roleplaying (and it sounds like this describes you), then I don't think there's any need to worry particularly about sticking to an official structure.

If you don't find yourself needing the structure to keep your story moving, then you're probably doing fine, and can simply call a rally phase whenever the action pauses. I also don't think there's any problem with players initiating a rally step, as long as they're playing in the spirit of the rules. i.e., they slaughter the zombies surrounding them, jump up onto the tombs and take a look across the cemetery to see how much further they've got to go to get to the vampire lord... One of the players that he's going to catch his breath and wipe the slime off his sword... And voila: the player calls a rally phase at a natural break.

My big problem is that the terms as used are wrong, at least as far as screen writing is concerned, and so it was very hard to wrap my head around. To me, what they call "acts" are what I think of as "beats," "episodes" are more like "scenes" it was all very confusing. The "three act structure" that they say is common to fiction is not at all like the "three act structure" that is actually common to fiction.

I'm still struggling with implementing it all, especially getting rally steps to flow naturally. I want them at the end of combat, but that's not really where they belong. When combat's over, it's over, so they have to go somewhere else.

However, I'm currently running The Gathering Storm, and I'm trying to stick hard to the breakdown in the book. I think it's helping me catch the flow that the rules intend.

Since there are abilities, and careers, that depend on rally steps, it is important to try to get it as intended. Unfortunately, a lot of the guidance they provide in the books doesn't make it very clear... If I'm remembering correctly the Soldier career is one whose class card uses Rally steps, making his career completely useless if rally steps don't occur during combat. But many of the examples given in the books don't use a structure which accomodates this.

The hands down best place to look for an example of rally steps and acts, as intended by the designers, is the original preview adventure which is probably still in the Support section... A Handful of Shillings or something?

Act I - fight some beast men attacking a merchant wagon

(rally Step)

Act II - beastmen reinforcements

(rally step)

Act III - negotiate with an uncooperative merchant who doesn't seem to much appreciate the party saving him

Vaeron said:

This is the adventure that I'm going to run on Friday for my group - which will be our first foray into Warhammer 3rd edition (or any edition for that matter). My problem with the rally step is that it doesn't seem to fit in smoothly with the flow of the game. The sudden change to rally step breaks the action. In the adventure the rally step occurs after the horn is blown for reinforcements. In my mind I can't help but see the horn being blown and then someone calls timeout. The monsters regroup and the characters bind wounds or whatever, then the whistle blows and we're off break and back into the action. Now, in all fairness, I haven't actually run the game yet, so it may work better than I think. But still, seems odd. How is everyone finding it working out in actual play - and has anyone run the demo game - how did it work out there?

Think of it as the horn blows (rally step starts) the characters do their best Michael Bay pivot while camera circles faces and shift gear/tighten a bandage/prep for the oncoming bellows and stomps of the reinforcements as they crash through the underbrush and into the clearing/weapons are gripped tighter/loins are girded (rally step ends, roll initiatives)

it can be that fast. Because there is so much fluidity in the way time is handled in W3 it can be tough for a GM to describe it succinctly and keep it feeling natural. Couple that with players dragging heels, macrogaming the healing rules, taking a break for smoke/food and you break that flow I think FFG is intending.

In our case I have had to get the players to buy into it and not see it as the 'halftime break' it reads like it could be, Hangfire.

Heck, a rally step could be the length of the ride back to town after the end of a particular encounter/act/scene whatever as well. For me, it's the <break> in the action that's important, not how long it is.

The Michael Bay reference made me laugh. I can see it that way too I guess. Like I said I'll have to wait and see how it actually plays out during the game. I'm really, really hoping my group loves this game as much as I do. After reading the rules I just can't wait to play.

Thanks for the input Keltheos.

Np.

I stil find writing to it difficult. I tend to let things go the way they flow and don't worry about breaking them up this way. I find working it in the way Emirikol does and keeping the rally step fluid is the best 'fit' for me.

Give it a couple sessions, you'll find your fit.

Hangfire said:

This is exactly the problem I'm having, and a Bay-like pan doesn't suit my groups play style. The idea of it even being just a moment may help.

This week we got to the big beastman fight in the first adventure in The Gathering Storm. They slog through the battle and finally kill Izka Madtooth. The adventure says that's when the rally step should have occurred, but the characters were all engaged with beastmen and it just didn't seem right somehow. In hindsight, I think I kind of see that it would have worked.

When the goal or focus shifts, you are in a new Act.

The confusing thing is when you map it over the context of real time. Depending on your group and how detailed you get in your roleplaying or combat resolutions, it might take you multiple sessions to resolve an Act. On the other hand, based on events in play a given act might end mid-session and segue into the next Act (hopefully it didn't catch you by surprise!).

Generally, Act I is the set up; its probably around 15-25% of the total plot. It's the set up, getting the protaganists involved, and so forth. Usually there will be a lead up, which in face to face RPGs is exposition, setting the scene, and so forth. You want to set the stage and then give the players a chance to react to what you've spun. There isn't really anything for them to do yet, but you want them to get comfortable in the set you've built for them and avoid the feeling of "hey, we're watching a movie / having a book read to us". In a movie or a book of course, event's would flow smoothly from the set up to the first interesting point...which is the inciting incident; ie the thing that is going to kick off the plot.

The inciting incident could be a bank robery, the cliche'd Mr. Johnson or flunky of the employer who wants to hire the protaganists, a murder, or really anything of interest that sets things in motion.

Often the real inciting incident happens off screen, and the aftermath of it sucks the protaganists into the story..like the lead up murder that kicks off a police procedural. Having the Act start with the inciting incident works great in the movies, and can be fun from time to time with a RPG group that's comfortable with each other, but in the RPG format even if the putative inciting incident has already happened off screen, for purposes of the players and the adventure itself the real inciting incident is when the protaganists become affected by the aftermath of it and forced to make a decision to engage with it.

This is a place where movies and books have it easy as the author(s) dictate that the protag's make decisions to engage and get the story rolling. In the RPG format you as the GM have to bait the hook a little more and get the players to bite on it. If the players are not willing to play along then you either have no game or you have to get increasingly more reactionary and escalate things to the point that the players HAVE to get engaged (sometimes you just let things take their course in the background...and hey look Act 2 has started and the protag's are behind the power curve), but then you are deemed a horrible railroading adversarial bastich of a GM. So its a lose / lose if the players don't take the hook, even if you are able to "salvage" the situation and move them along.

One of the most useful skills a GM can have is motivating players directly or indirectly to engage with the inciting incident around which the opening act is wrapped. If you can do this, the rest of the story will generally be all down hill. The players are engaged, their character's are engaged, and the story line is moving forward.

Don't dilly dally. Once the protag's are hooked, segue into Act 2 immediately. If you stall you risk loosing the fish off the hook.

It might feel natural to end a session at the end of Act 1 and pick it up at the beginning of Act 2, and sometimes it is simply a necessity, but personally I find it is better to start Act 2 at the tail end of the last session of Act 1 and then abruptly end on a high note; a cliffhanger, or an intriguing revelation.

People remember the last part of something more than the most. People also normally seek closure. So if you give them a wrapped up closed off end to a session, they are more comfortable with things if that turns out to be the LAST session. If you leave them hanging on the hook with an unresolved outcome, they wont be able to get it out of their mind and they'll be chomping at the bit for the next session to see what happens next. It's why tv shows oftent have a few extra minutes at the episode after the plot points of that episode have been resolved...they want to leave some loose ends hanging so as to motivate you to tune in next week. Same thing with movies that are obviously planning on a sequel...they set the next movie up in the last few minutes of the current one.

This isn't rocket science...the entertainment industry has turned this into a bit of science. You too can take advantage of it.

Act 2 is the bulk of the plot. It's focus is the protaganists coming to grips with the whatever is going on and confronting challenges. It's the bulk of the rise to the climax in which the protag's take action, exert effort, and almost succeed or fail only to suffer some kind of plot reversal or a revelation that what they THOUGHT was going on is not what is REALLY going on, and other similar devices. It's generally 50% of the plot, but 40-60% is a workable range. If Act 2 stretches out the plot will feel long or sprawling, if it's too short it will feel rushed or choppy...however if such is your intent then go for it.

Act 2 is when the protag's show us what they are made of and why we should care about them. By the middle of Act 2, if we aren't identifying with at least one of the protaganists and want to see what happens with them, we will collectively lose interest in the story. In the RPG format for the players hopefully the protaganist with which they identify is their own PC. If not, you've got a disinterested player on your hands and thus a potential problem. Hopefully they are getting enough joy from the bigger picture to stay connected, but even if they do they are not going to rate the campaign as one of their favorites or have overly fond rememberances.

An important skill for a GM is to be able to tell when one or more players are not connecting with their characters and thus the game. If midway thru Act 2 the players have no love for their dudes you have a failed game on your hands and it probably wont make it all the way thru the back half of Act 2 or into Act 3 as there is no motivation to keep grinding it out. This means leading you to the midpoint you want to subtly make sure you've given every player 2 or more opportunities to shine and feel happy with their PC.

Generally somewhere around the midpoint there will be a false climax, a first culmination when it seems like the protags are close to acheiveing something or the end is in sight, only to discover they are wrong and catch the first glipse of the TRUE climax. This could be discovering the identity of the REAL bad guy, or uncovering the big dark secret / lie that they were ignorant of as they labored in the first half of Act 2. This is the "you dirty bastich" moment in RPGs where the players spew some good natured abuse on the GM and feel the rueage or smugly smirk because they saw it coming all along and "knew it!". If you are reading a book, this is the part at which you become re-interested and feel like you can't put it down. In a movie this is the part where you want to go to the bathroom to void the 32 ounce slurpee you drank in the first half of the movie but you grit it out because you're afraid to miss what happens next.

This is the high point of the plot basically, the teeter totter that the first half has been building up to. If it falls flat you've got a dead duck on your hands. Fortunately in an RPG format if you feel like your first culmination fizzled and flew over the bows with no impact, you can hopefully keep it to yourself and gracefully wrap up the session (or kill some time with a random encounter), brood over it offline, and come back next session and spring a plot point ambush on the players ... ie, your new better culmination. This one had better do the trick; I've never seen a third attempt catch...or for that matter a second if you make the mistake of letting the players know it's really a salvage attempt. You have to pull it off without anyone ever knowing...and don't ever tell them after the fact. Keep the wizard behind the screen.

After the first culmination, ie the midpoint of Act 2, the players should have a clear objective. No fun and games, no misdirection, no wheels within wheels within wheels, no retconning. Pull the trigger and give them a red carpet yellow brick road clearly illuminated run up to the real climax. The time for (almost) all the plot machinations is now past. The protags have presumably paid their dues and now its time to escort them to the pay off.

The separation between Acts 2 and 3 is a little fuzzier than between Act 1 and 2, but basically while Act 1 was the lead up and Act 2 was about coming to grips with the plot, Act 3 is the resolution. So, as soon as the focus shifts from dealing with misc stuff towards putting and end to the problem you are switching into Act 3. Clear the decks, and don't distract the protaganists with misc details.

Like Act 1, Act 3 is 15-25% of the total plot. There should be a sense of urgency in the final act.

Now...in an RPG format of course you always have to deal with your co-authors, the players so this doesn't always come to pass. Maybe the players are having so much fun in Act 2, they are not yet ready for it to end and want to keep taking on challenges that are within their comfort zone vs. taking on the big-bad or putting paid to the plot. They may also just not want the game to end. It's up to you if you want to cater to this desire. In my experience however, you just get a campaign that never ends and the protags spend all their time walloing in their power band, eventually becoming Mary Sue's...easily able to contend with anything they are willing to take on, but afraid or unwilling to bite off a real threat or challenge. Some groups enjoy this however, so there's no right or wrong to it.

Personally, I turn the plot up to 11. If the protags don't ratchet up the intensity towards the climax, I will. Things will speed up and events will start to trigger. If they wont act, they can react, but the plotline is engaged now and there is a destination in site...Climax Juncture.

The climax is the point at which the plot reaches its maximum tension protags and antag(s) confront each other for all the marbles. This generally occurs in the first 1/3 or 1/2 of Act 3 but sometimes will be at the back half of Act 3...however this will cause the plot to "just end" and feel abrupt, which people generally don't like.

Once the climax is done there is an aftermath which sometimes gets skipped in the RPG format, but I would encourage you to not skip it if you intend to have the players use these same PC's in another adventure...or even different PC's for that matter. The aftermath allows you to embed in their heads that there is more to be done with these characters, and also with you and this game. Be subtle, but you want the players to walk away feeling satisfied but not 100% fulfilled. You want to leave them wanting more, as the saying goes. In the case where PC's have definitely reached there "end of life", and will definitely be retired, you want to make sure to give them a suitable end that will resonate with the player(s). This will give them a major sense of accomplishment and is a fitting cap to the time they've invested into the character and the game.

I've seen a lot of GM's invest all their time in a final session on the last big encounter, and time it so the final encounter ends at the session end. It is almost impossible to motivate players to come back for one final "clean up session" however and thus that's the end of things....or the denouement will actually get tacked onto the begging of the next Act 1 if there is another adventure to be had.

It happens, and if your play schedule is weekly it's workable, but if you the lag between adventures is longer it can be a group-killer. I recommed that you instead time things so that the final encounter ends an hour, hour and a half before the end of the last session and have a thought out final scene or epilogue. Be warned however to not make too many assumptions about where a player wants their characters to end up. It is perfectly ok (and in fact a good idea) to feel them out on this subject before hand and custom bake an outcome they will find palatable.

As to Rally Steps...anytime I feel the need to recap a scene, refocus the action, or even force a pause (maybe the group is burning thru the content too fast and I know I'll run out of material I'm prepared to run, or maybe they are about to do something pointlessly stupid and I want to give them a chance to get their heads straight), I'll call a Rally Step. It's at a much more micro-level than the broad strokes of the acts. However the specific points mentioned in each Act represent a good opportunity for a Rally Step if events in play seem appropriate.

RARodger said:

If it didn't feel right, then it wasn't right. If it didn't add anything or give you or the players and opporuntity to change the focus of the encounter, then you definitely made the right call.

On the other hand, if you wanted to take the opportunity to escalate or de-escalate the encounter or give them players the opportunity to do so then it would have been the right call to have a Rally Step.

It's just a judgment call. If your players were having fun and the action was furiously flying, then a Rally Step would have been counter productive and only you as the GM can make that assessment as you run the game. The adventure as written merely represents an idealized version of a story as imagined by the author(s). It can't take into account the exigent details of your session. That's GM job security right there

As an aside, its not Warhammer, but here are a couple of 3 Act plots I did for a dark urban HERO System setting:

www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Vignettes/VenusMalefica.aspx

www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Vignettes/TheTroubleWithBanshees.aspx

You can also find a lot of discussion about 3 Act Discussion with some googling; it's a pretty ubiquitous concept and has been analyzed well beyond my level of interest, including various riffs and variations.

KillerShrike said:

Sorry...I meant 3 Act Structure.