I'm sorry if this topic has been discussed before but I've been wondering a bit about the three-act structure as it is so STRONGLY suggested by the GM books. I have to admit I have a bit of trouble applying this in our campaign. Naturally there will be lulls in the action where a rally step feels appropriate but I never think of it in such a clear-cut, almost mathematical way. I'm a bit afraid that it might encourage a railroady approach when the story is already neatly divided into episodes and acts before play. Does anyone else feel this way?

I don't think you should feel compelled to always follow it but it's a good staring point. Exposition/Rising Action/Action/Twist-Climax, breather before onto next etc.

A single stand alone encounter with full refresh before the next may not be enough menace, does not allow accumulation of fatigue/stress to matter enough etc.

Too long a stretch without a full recovery is too tough.

However, adding another rally step when if feels right, having a 4 act structure at times all fine as well.

I think they emphasize it because of their game mechanics, like rally step. But I found it convenient to use it in my games nevertheless, although I am an experienced gm and never bothered with such structure before.

I would always vote for: use it 3 or 4 sessions, then decide if or to what extend to use it.

Really, you just need to look at the 3-act structure as a natural sequence that is found in every story.

Beginning - middle - end.

Easy breezy.

Now you can complicate it a bit, by breaking those into their own 3-act structure.

1. Beginning

a. beginning

b. middle

c. end

2. Middle

a. beginning

b. middle

c. end

3. End

a. beginning

b. middle

c. end

And so on, you can break pieces into natural sets of 3, depending on the amount of action or detail you want to provide/occur. You can break it down even more, for longer campaigns for example. In general, two "levels" is generally all you need for one-off adventures or simple campaigns.

The beginning is the lead-in to the story/act. It covers the arrival and initial investigation of that portion of the adventure. It is the initial build up, where the PCs are getting the bearings at the new location, gathering information.

The middle starts getting into the meat of the matter. Threads start tying to together, information leads to suspects, etc. The middle culminates, generally, with a point to a "destination" or final something and builds the tension in preparation for the ending.

The ending is where the PCs face the current "top" challenge of that act. 3© is the ultimate bad guy/opponent. A 1© might be the big reveal from a local smuggler that the PCs need to head to Altdorf to continue their investigation, etc. (which leads to 2 being Altdorf, with 2(a) being their travel to and arrival in Altdorf and getting situated).

As I said, the 3-act is a natural means of constructing a story, and thus why FFG included this method as the suggested manner in which to run WFRP.

Thanks for the replies, guys. I don't have a problem with the structure as a basic element of storytelling at all. It's just that no other RPG has ever turned it into a mechanic as far as I know and I guess my problem is that it makes me feel a bit inhibited or constrained in the more improvisational aspects of GMing. I just notice I tend to forget about it/ignore it in-game and I mostly just enter rally steps when it feels appropriate.