Seeing as how this is the Campaign Builder's Guild, not just the Setting Designers Combine, I thought I'd start a thread on how to design a campaign, as distinct from designing the setting the campaign will take place in.
Basically this thread was triggered by reading this Design and Development (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a) page at WotC on PC Roles. It's not very detailed, of course, since it is a teaser for 4ed D&D, but even so I was struck by how much the discussion revolved around the character's role in a combat encounter, as opposed to the role in the adventure or campaign. Also, in How to Build a Monster Manual (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a) they discuss the roles of monsters, but again their role in a combat encounter as opposed to their role in the campaign.
It also goes along the lines of some noodling (http://75.70.105.39:8080/cgi-bin/GameWiki.pl/PlotClassification) I started at one point. (This is my personal Wiki, and I've been playing with the CSS so excuse the mess. Also, feel free to add comments, create pages, whatever. Except don't waste disk space by uploading huge files or anything.)
So my questions for the brain trust are:
What makes for a good, memorable campaign? A good setting is part of it, of course, but not everything. A lot of the discussion in Wizards columns seems to treat the campaign as if it were a series of encounters - make the encounters memorable, and the campaign will follow. That can't be right - but what is the role of individual encounters in making a campaign better?
Are there techniques or methods for various aspects that can improve things? Areas like starting the campaign, when to end it, character creation, player collaboration?
How do you put individual scenes or encounters together to increase the interest in a story-line? How do you put separate adventures or story-lines together to make a campaign?
How are things different for an extended campaign, as opposed to a one-shot? What about on-going campaigns where players may leave or new players join in?
How do you keep a campaign going when the realities of life intrude - such as a GM that has to take a hiatus, or players who can't reliably make it every session?
How can email, IRC, or IM be used in a campaign that is primarily F2F? Or should they? Seems like a lot of out-of-game stuff can be handled that way, but can this be unfair to some players who don't have as much time or net access?
I'm sure there are lots of other questions or ideas others might have. But I thought I'd throw this out there as a conversation starter.
Man, you sure do go right for the tough questions. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I can offer some theories.
QuoteWhat makes for a good, memorable campaign? A good setting is part of it, of course, but not everything. A lot of the discussion in Wizards columns seems to treat the campaign as if it were a series of encounters - make the encounters memorable, and the campaign will follow. That can't be right - but what is the role of individual encounters in making a campaign better?
done something.[/i] Just one big, overarching thing.
Planning a game as a series of encounters gets you a fragmented sort of game, the kind I refer to pejoratively as "monster-of-the-week" serials. When you look back and say "today I fought an ogre, and yesterday I fought a troll, and last week I fought a zombie,"
and those are the big events, a sort of ennui develops. (Worse, none of the encounters-- on which the GM is presumably placing a great deal of focus-- are even that interesting! Every session is just another beast to slay, for no other reason than "it's what me and the guys do at Chuck's house on Tuesday nights.")
A campaign should tell the story of characters as they accomplish
one task, and each individual session/encounter/whatever should be a segment of that process. If the players are motivated by the need to, say, defeat a crazed warlord and his unnaturally-bolstered army, they have a clearly-defined goal that can unify all the encounters along the way. All the segments of the big task (sneaking into the city under the warlord's control, locating resistance, breaking out of jail, fighting giant-blooded goons, assassinating a second-in-command, fighting their way into a fortress, etc.) are unified as steps toward the ultimate goal, which gives them purpose from week to week.
It gives the players something to look back on as if it meant something. Ask what the campaign was about, and you'll get "We overcame many hardships to defeat Balthar the evil warlord," rather than "I guess we fought a lot of separate battles for no particular reason."
Individual encounters can be variously crafted so that there's variety, so that all the players get a little something thrown in that they
adore, so that all the characters get a chance to shine, so that everybody gets a moment to say, "Well, I wasn't expecting
that." But don't get so wrapped up that you lose sight of the big picture.
QuoteHow do you put individual scenes or encounters together to increase the interest in a story-line?
investigations[/i] did any good. Because my pre-drawn conclusions were inflexible.
If I had it to do over again, I would have
changed the ending to match some of the players' suspicions, somewhere along the way. They'd never have to know.
If the players are investigating a rival senator, believing that the kidnapping may have been motivated by a desire for political leverage, then
just maybe.... hey! it turns out their suspicions are correct! Even if that's nothing at all like what my original brainstorming notes said.
That's a wise lesson to learn LC. I often plot out mystery games like this:
[spoiler].............Introduction
..................|
..............First.Lead
..............|........|
............ignore...follow
..............|........|
.......Second Lead...Red Herring*
.......|.........|..........|
......ignore...follow.......|
.......|.........|..........|
.......|.........|..........|
.......|....Red Herring*...|
.......|...........|........|
.......|...........Third.Lead
.......|............|......|
.......|..........ignore..follow
.......|...........|.........|
.......|.....Outside.Assist..|
.......|......|.........|....|
.......|..ignore...cooperate.|
.......|.....|..........|....|
.......\-----|.......Secret.Knowledge
.............|..............|
.............|...........Puzzle
.............|...........|....|
.............|........solve...fail
.............|..........|.......|
.............\------------------/
......................|
....................Climax
* = Though I list this a red herring, it's often a key point in the mystery/puzzle.[/spoiler]With each "lead" being chosen by me during the game. I'll write out each element beforehand, and then mix it up live.
But I digress, what makes a good campaign? I'd back up LC by saying purpose. I think that individual game sessions are made good by avoiding awkward silence and going for "awesome" moments. Groups are made good through camaraderie.
A good game should focus on all of these, and I think there's a lot of skill in tailoring a campaign to build friendships and build the feeling needed to get a scene the players will remember.
Encounters really depend on your system and your group. Some systems have fast, deadly combat which helps add dramatic flare and kick up tension, while others (d20...) mean long, drawn-out, strategic combats that are usually much more cerebral.
A lot of the questions you're asking REALLY depend on group. Some people love the little things (having dinner together as characters) while others like fast, no-holds sprints from start to climax. I'll probably post more of my experiences, but I'm curious whether you have a specific group in mind or are just looking for general ideas.
I'm really thinking that we see a lot of discussion about settings, and what makes a good setting. For example, the Theme Wars topic rather ran along this line.
There are also plenty of places where one can read about game design - such as how certain mechanics encourage or discourage certain types of play.
But the questions of how to design, plot, and structure a campaign (or a single adventure, or even just a single game session) for good effect are often somewhat neglected. So I'm kind of looking for general ideas, or specific examples from which general ideas might be gleaned.
Things like, "How to design or plot out a mystery adventure to avoid the players getting stuck, while also avoiding the sense of being railroaded?"
Or, "My players like to have a lot of freedom to choose what they'll do, but we always end up sort of drifting around and never accomplishing anything. How can you create a compelling campaign for a group like that?"
I'm not looking for anything specific, really, but if even one of these questions spawns some discussion, I'm sure I'll learn something useful.
For example, I think the idea of avoiding awkward silences is a good one. The GM has to control the pacing of the game, mostly (I think) by paying attention to each scene, and what role it is playing in the session, the current adventure, and/or the overall story arc. If it has out-lived its usefulness, wrap it up and move along. If it seems to be engaging the players, but not advancing the story, try to redirect it a little by introducing a new element.
Well, since that's the case, I feel compelled to point to one of the best threads on the topic ever (IMO): http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=471897&pp=1
Oakspar eventually gets into stuff like crunch and setting design, which he's not as good at, and the thread is clogged with feedback, but seriously, this should be required reading for GMs.
QuoteBasically this thread was triggered by reading this Design and Development page at WotC on PC Roles. It's not very detailed, of course, since it is a teaser for 4ed D&D, but even so I was struck by how much the discussion revolved around the character's role in a combat encounter, as opposed to the role in the adventure or campaign. Also, in How to Build a Monster Manual they discuss the roles of monsters, but again their role in a combat encounter as opposed to their role in the campaign.
This seems to be a problem with the new editions in general. As far as I've ever seen it, the further back in the editions you go, the more campaign-based a character gets. 2e was all about that, especially with warrior-types. 3e also had this, in that a fighter's, paladin's, barbarian's, wizard's, bard's, cleric's, etc. role had more importance over the course of the campaign than in each individual encounter (because whichever side you choose, there are some classes that always beat other classes in a 1v1 almost hands-down, and the game wasn't really designed for that). But then again, maybe the idea of classes having roles for combat encounters can free them up to be more interesting outside of combat, instead of having various builds that are made to cause as much damage as possible within a few actions.
QuoteWhat makes for a good, memorable campaign? A good setting is part of it, of course, but not everything. A lot of the discussion in Wizards columns seems to treat the campaign as if it were a series of encounters - make the encounters memorable, and the campaign will follow. That can't be right - but what is the role of individual encounters in making a campaign better?
A good campaign lets players feel like they're in a world that functions not only with or without them, but sometimes
because of them. It doesn't have to be on a large scale. If the players go on a huge quest for a small kingdom cut off from the rest of the world, but end up saving that kingdom from certain doom, then it has become much more significant. PCs want to have an effect, and they want to have a story revolve around them and what they do. Some would like to take down the bad guys - and some would like to be the bad guys. Working towards such goals includes encounters of combat and non-combat form, that all go together to create the story. So in a way, it's not each individual encounter but a series of encounters of various types leading up to a finale that create the campaign. This can work for any style of play (more roll-play or more role-play, the scale just gets tipped in one direction a little more).
QuoteAre there techniques or methods for various aspects that can improve things? Areas like starting the campaign, when to end it, character creation, player collaboration?
Starting a campaign is arguably one of the hardest things to do, in my opinion. It's like physics and the differences between static and kinetic energy/friction. The amount of work required to start something in motion is greater than the amount of work required to keep it moving once it has begun. The most reasonable ways to have characters meet are to have them be related or have mutual friends, grow up together and experience a similar crisis that springs them into action, or have a particular lord pluck them out of the ranks to become a sort of special team. Other options are generally harder to do, or more specific. The "you meet in the tavern" approach is vulnerable to becoming super-cheesy, and most other common ways of meeting depend heavily on the characters and their personalities. A paladin or cleric, for example, might not be likely to answer a call for mercenaries to deal with some problems, and to be paid handsomely in return unless they have special plans for that money besides personal wealth, or if they're looking for like-minded individuals (and all kinds of scum and people who aren't really all that skilled will probably answer an add that has a large enough sum). A lot of this extends to character cooperation.
Ending a campaign works best
when the players have nothing left to really do. Sometimes, this point in time can be hard to discern, and you may have to ask your players if they think there's anything else they could do, or if there's anything else their characters wish to do (which might give you more ideas). After the players go from, say 1st level to 14th, they may finally take down that evil sorcerer who has haunted their steps and caused them trouble from day one, and at that point it may be good enough to retire. It's easy enough to bring up other options for them to keep going for a while longer, such as if a lieutenant of said sorcerer gains similar power and starts doing even worse damage, or if the sorcerer manages to come back (damn you Palpatine); but games can become really boring and repetitive fast if there's a huge "ok, there's nothing left here so let's go explore the planes" movement in the upper levels. Players should be world-shakers in some way, but they shouldn't keep shaking, lest the avalanche come tumbling down.
Also, the characters shouldn't necessarily follow one path and one path only. It's nice to know you've eventually got to take down that warlord or slay that dragon, or negotiate a peace between two countries who are slowly tearing a region apart, but you shouldn't be focusing on
only that. There are always other things going on, such as maybe a secret cult trying to corrupt the populace or poison the water, or a series of strange murders and superstitions made real in border villages. If the player's aren't absolutely pressed to get right to where their arch-enemy is, then there's no reason why they couldn't sidetrack long enough to do another good deed. It's nice to be able to say "we saved the world from so-and-so", but it's even nicer to say "we saved the world from so-and-so, and while doing so drove off the invasion of barbarians, rescued a princess from multiple assassination attempts, recovered a sacred relic for the church, and drove off the nightmare spirits in Chastelby".
QuoteHow do you put individual scenes or encounters together to increase the interest in a story-line? How do you put separate adventures or story-lines together to make a campaign?
The easiest way is just to have them be related. You'll want to include direct connections between enemies faced sometimes (perhaps with banners or marks they bear), and others you'll want to keep the players in the dark while they learn of connections between the seemingly good and the clearly (maybe?) bad. You'll want to have twists and turns, and ESPECIALLY make sure that the players can really influence the way things work; war clearly shouldn't begin between three previously friendly countries even after the plot to start a three-way massacre has been discovered and foiled.
Story lines can be linked by seemingly unimportant individuals as often as the important ones. Perhaps someone the PCs saved from a dungeon turns out to be an unrelated, but bigger threat than the one they eliminated, and now they feel it's their duty to hunt her down and deal with her after releasing her from captivity. Maybe an abandoned city they explore gives them clues about a lost treasure they decide to search for, only to discover people in dire need of help along the way.
-----
I can't really give answers to the other questions as I haven't had that many problems of the sort.
I might have something more to say on campaign design in the future, but for now, I want to comment on the mention of theme wars.
I actually see campaign design as kind of similar (wait, stay with me) -- either the campaign has an overarching theme which unites the plot, or it is held together only by having the same protagonists. Either can be fun, but to really feel like the campaign has gone somewhere and been more than "what we do on Tuesdays," it has to be moving towards some climax which brings together everything that's happened, just like a novel or movie. The difference is, it's harder for the writer to control this than in a novel or movie, because he can't (and shouldn't) control the PCs actions, nor limit the consequences of those actions (which would effectively render them meaningless).
Quote from: TrollThe most reasonable ways to have characters meet are to have them be related or have mutual friends, grow up together and experience a similar crisis that springs them into action, or have a particular lord pluck them out of the ranks to become a sort of special team.
about[/b] to really get off to a good start. This might be quite specific, such as a quest to drive out alien invaders. Or it might be more thematic, like the rise and fall of a noble family. That is, it's not necessarily how the characters know each other as some kind of common theme or goal so the players won't make incompatible characters. It also may give the players an idea of what actions or choices will move the story along and what won't; and may also allow them to cooperate and participate in creating the story line.
Then again, for some groups that might be too constrictive. But even so, it seems to me that some kind of agreement or understanding between the players and GM should be set up before people even start making characters.
So, "You are all friends who grew up together in a small town," is okay, but probably not enough to get off to a good start. You need to also give them (or ask them to provide) some idea of what to expect. "Invaders have destroyed and burned your town, and you are among the few survivors," helps to provide some context and at least some initial direction. Players can make characters that will have something interesting to do in this scenario. "You need to lead your friends and neighbors across dangerous territory to request assistance from the Duke and drive the invaders from your home," provides a more detailed idea of the overall expected story line. Different groups will want different amounts of this kind of stuff.
Quote from: TrollAlso, the characters shouldn't necessarily follow one path and one path only. It's nice to know you've eventually got to take down that warlord or slay that dragon, or negotiate a peace between two countries who are slowly tearing a region apart, but you shouldn't be focusing on only that.
Subplots and the like are always nice, but there is always a risk that you'll divert the momentum of the main story. Things like that may work well as a kind of comic relief or interlude - something simple and fun that occurs while the characters aren't otherwise engaged. They can also be a way to work in some of the characters' interests that aren't directly related to the main story line.
My own sense, from the games I've played in, is that we have to strike a delicate balance here. Too many diversions or subplots and you lose the sense of continuity. Not enough, and you lose the sense of a whole big campaign world that is going about its business while the characters are going about theirs.
Quote from: Phoenix Knight... but to really feel like the campaign has gone somewhere and been more than "what we do on Tuesdays," it has to be moving towards some climax which brings together everything that's happened, just like a novel or movie. The difference is, it's harder for the writer to control this than in a novel or movie, because he can't (and shouldn't) control the PCs actions, nor limit the consequences of those actions (which would effectively render them meaningless).
Actually, this is pretty close to some of my thinking on this. When writing a book, play, or movie, every scene has to contribute to the story in some way. There are various types of contributions: setting the scene, characterization, foreshadowing, comic relief, romantic interlude, etc. And the story itself usually involves not only a main story line, but also subplots, so a scene might contribute differently to the main story and/or to one of the subplots.
One question though, is how much this can be carried over to the RPG context. Depending on the game and the group, the players may be relying on the GM to function as the writer, or they may want to participate in the writing themselves, or they may even rebel against the idea of a strong plot/storyline consideration altogether. But one thing seems certain to me: things won't move toward a climax that brings things together unless someone is paying attention to make sure this happens.
What makes a series of sessions a campaign is indeed the plot. The separate elements are not that tightly related: you have the setting, the encounters, and the plot. The encounters can be memorable (as tactical challenges, for example) even without any underlying setting or plot, but the plot seems to me to be the main defining element of a campaign.
In my experience the issue of who maintains the plot is somewhat a shared issue. The best two campaigns our group has played both started as very loosely (if at all) connected encounters, but the DM(s) gradually collected the loose ends of those encounters and gathered comments and revelations the players had made about their characters and started feeding them back into the plot. This started to work wonderfully after the slightly slow start and made the events be very personal to the characters (and players).
So, what this in essence means is that it may be very difficult to plan a good campaign entirely in advance. The only case where I see it possible is if the same party of characters continues from a previous campaign, so the "adhesive surface", so to speak, towards the characters already exists. It's close to the advice of avoiding railroading, but not entirely that simple - it's not letting the players do whatever they want, but to provide a plot rich with personal tie-ins for the characters.
What makes a successful campaign for our group I think would be similar to what the others have said. Mainly:
Purpose - We question almost every option presented, so there must be a purpose to the campaign. Why are we doing this? What do we gain, etc.?
Overall plot - as stated before, a series of unrelated adventures gets tiresome soon, despite the quality of the adventures. You need an overall plot (or even better, several) to make a really good campaign.
Growth - One of the biggest differences between an adventure and a campaign is that you get to progress your character, in terms of wealth, achievements, stories, and levels. This may be one of the single most important aspects of a good campaign.
Comraderie - a good campaign has a good sense of fellowship. This aspect may seem a bit fluffy, but you can design your campaign to cater to it. For example, ensuring that every character is needed and that teamwork is required to succeed will foster comraderie.
Well, I like generally the ideas I've seen here. Purpose (plot), growth, camaraderie.
But just for a second, I'm going to play devil's advocate.
I once played in an interesting campaign that had no purpose, precious little growth, and not much camaraderie between the characters. (Between the players was a different story.)
In this campaign, each adventure was separate and distinct, even usually involving a different group of player characters. Gut they all took place in the same general area of the same world. So you'd constantly be meeting up with the same set of NPC's, seeing the results of previous adventures, and so on. You might play a character for an adventure or two, put him on the bench for a while, then pull him out again if a situation arose that was relevant to that character. There was no "party" of adventurers that hung together, just groups of characters that were thrown together based on having interest in the given situation. For example, on of my characters had gotten appointed as a Ward Captain in the City Guard, so if something was threatening the peace of the city streets, he was on it. Otherwise, it was assumed he was fulfilling his duties and I'd be playing some other character.
There was no plot or purpose. Characters knew each other, lost touch, got reacquainted. Growth and advancement was slow and spotty - based on the result of an adventure, a character might move to a new position, make new enemies or allies, or acquire a country estate to retire to. But since characters often didn't play too often, they didn't raise up in abilities too quickly.
Then sometimes we'd switch for a while to a different campaign in a different part of the same world.
So that was pretty non-traditional, yet it was fun in its own way. I'd say that, although it was a times a bit uneven, it was a successful campaign.
I'm not sure how to fit this into the ideas we've been discussing. It seems to throw a monkey wrench into the works. At least it shows that there are alternative campaign styles.
Honestly snake, I think that stretches the traditional definition of what we mean when we say campaign. It does sound found, though.
I would say, however, it probably had one of things we've discussed, in passing, which is a good GM. Whose running the campaign is an important aspect of the experience.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightI would say, however, it probably had one of things we've discussed, in passing, which is a good GM. Whose running the campaign is an important aspect of the experience.
This is quite correct, but not very instructive. Saying "To run a successful campaign, be a good GM," is not terribly useful advice. :)
There are certainly exceptions to the generalized guidelines we've all been sketching out, and Snakefing wisely reminds us to avoid making presumptions, to keep our options open.
(His example is interesting because it
does seem to be unified, just not in terms of characters or plot. The setting is more-or-less constant, so that one session's actions affect the next's session's (different) characters directly. A community, rather than a handful of individuals, is being explored.)
I think for me it all starts in the plot and goals your are looking to create for the players. Each encounter should not just be about the player battling said creature, but the encounter should represent something or lead the P.C. in the direction where they feel they become part of a bigger story. You can't effect what the P.C. are going to do but you can at least give several choices, within the encounter that lead to satisfactory conclusion of the game. I look at my game as a Soap Opera, Comic book or T.V. show. In essences it a serial, so each game takes on the essences of a t.v. show, in which next week we continue the lives of these characters. Music as I spoke of before, really brings the P.C. into a feeling that they are apart of a grand epic, imagine star wars with no music, how juiced would we be to see it. Wizards can only place the encounters down, they can't tell us how to expand on it. Its when you add great characterization, epic themes, good game mechanics, food and drink is when the campaign comes flying off, and the heroes after slaying their arch nemesis in triumph feel like they have gained.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: Phoenix KnightI would say, however, it probably had one of things we've discussed, in passing, which is a good GM. Whose running the campaign is an important aspect of the experience.
This is quite correct, but not very instructive. Saying "To run a successful campaign, be a good GM," is not terribly useful advice. :)
There are certainly exceptions to the generalized guidelines we've all been sketching out, and Snakefing wisely reminds us to avoid making presumptions, to keep our options open.
(His example is interesting because it does seem to be unified, just not in terms of characters or plot. The setting is more-or-less constant, so that one session's actions affect the next's session's (different) characters directly. A community, rather than a handful of individuals, is being explored.)
That comment, about the GM, was entirely in response to snakefig's example. My point was almost exactly what you said LC, that we were naming the elements under our control for how to create a good game, but that it sounded to me like it was another element entirely that made his game good.
I would argue that kind of scenario is more like several short campaigns. Certainly, I have run and played in campaigns that use the same settings, characters, or even PCs, but are still separate campaigns.
I would say another element that can make a game more memorable for the players, is to make it really about them. Now, we would say that almost rote -- of course the PCs are the stars -- but it becomes so much more involving when it really matters one PC from the next, or if the plot couldn't have happened with a different PC (the downside is if someone has to quit the game or doesn't show, it can really throw the game off).
When I'm planning a grand game, one driven by plot rather than just very casual, I ask everyone to write a background for their character weeks before the game. Then I take all those backgrounds and tie the elements of the campaign in as much as I possibly can, using the characters in their backgrounds, twisting, tweaking, and hopefully, finding what really matters to a character, what motivates him or her. I can expand on this, but I expect most people know what I'm talking about.
And really, when running, you have to know your players, know what they want and what they don't. With knowing them, it becomes easier to predict how they may handle a situation, so you're less likely to have make something up on the fly that might not fit with the plot so well; because you can never limit their options or force them down a path.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightThat comment, about the GM, was entirely in response to snakefig's example. My point was almost exactly what you said LC, that we were naming the elements under our control for how to create a good game, but that it sounded to me like it was another element entirely that made his game good.
I would argue that kind of scenario is more like several short campaigns. Certainly, I have run and played in campaigns that use the same settings, characters, or even PCs, but are still separate campaigns.
To some extent, I'm trying to look for techniques in campaign building that could turn a mediocre GM like myself into, well, if not a good GM, at least a better one. First - what makes for a good campaign. Second - what can you do to increase the odds that your campaign is a good one? What to emphasize, what to pay attention to, etc.
This may include all parts of the game, from interacting with your players, to designing adventures and encounters, to the actual techniques used during the game to manage the flow of the game. Out of game stuff may be the easiest to suggest and implement - during the game you usually need to focus on decision-making, mechanics, and role-playing in response to players' actions.
Also, a good GM is important, but so are good players. A good GM inspires the players, good players respond and elaborate in interesting ways, and this inspires the GM to produce even more interesting things.
Admittedly, my example pushes the boundaries of what we'd normally define as a campaign, but at the time it felt more like a highly non-standard campaign. I think it comes down to a word LC used -
unified. Like, sometimes you'd be in the middle of an adventure and think, "Oh, So-And-So will be so pissed off about this," where So-And-So was some other character who wasn't even involved in the adventure. It's that kind of unifying linkage that seemed to make a difference.
Quotea good GM is important, but so are good players.
Absolutely. One of the truest things ever said about roleplaying.
No game works if the players aren't ready for a game of that kind. You can't make a horror game work if the players don't want to be scared, you can't make a mystery game work if they want hack & slash, and you can't make a story-first game work if they want to "win" (as I learned to my chagrin in a short-lived campaign).
[blockquote=SNake]Also, a good GM is important, but so are good players. A good GM inspires the players, good players respond and elaborate in interesting ways, and this inspires the GM to produce even more interesting things.[/blockquote]
Good Lord, yes. One of the best things a DM can do is Set up the game and the system so that good players thrive, and mediocre ones do not.
Ok, Now back to all the original questions.
I can't say my answers will work for everyone. But I can at least lay claim to having answered everyone of these questions for myself and my game. My campaign is old, so having these things come up is natural. And in some cases, I made some mistakes, and got lucky not to lose the game because of it.
One of the first things that is important is finding players that match the campaign you want to run. It may sound basic, but I will explain it and then give a personal example. Games are like books. They can be wildly different, and have totally different stories, but a good game would make a good book. And any of us who have taken fiction writing or plot development writing classes knows that there are a lot of very good guidelines to follow. But how it affects the player experience is that a bunch of players that like books and stories very different from your setting probably won't like your setting. If all your players love Terry Brooks but hate Glen Cook, they won't be looking for a gritty fantasy game.
I run a low HP world. The two players I have lost due to lack of interest were interested in a different type of setting, one where there was a more 'heroic' margin for error. They wanted Simon Green, I gave them George Martin...
My Bad.
The next thing, before you write word one about the setting, and the funny gods and races, is the big picture for character growth. What ruleset is going to give the world, and therefor the players, the growth and developement you want.
[blockquote=Ivar]Growth - One of the biggest differences between an adventure and a campaign is that you get to progress your character, in terms of wealth, achievements, stories, and levels. This may be one of the single most important aspects of a good campaign.[/blockquote]
Much like when you want to start a book or story, you have to have an Idea about scope before you start writing. A single story-line game is like a single novel, and you want to have some player developement during it, as the 'projected self-actualization' need is one of the strongest motivators for players. However, as players and games mature, they often (not always) want a game and setting where their growth does not outstrip the world around them...
If you want your game to last a while, figure the mechanics out so that there is consistent, little growth-steps, but in very small increments.
This is all a matter of scope. It is a succesful game when you create a great starting town and surroundings, and the players come back to it after being away, and everyone is amazed at how fine their clothes and horses are, and their former teachers tell them how proud they are, and the guildmasters want to offer them positions, and they can build a house...and those things that were threatening the caravans are still there, can the players now maybe take a look?
It is a horrible game when they come back, but they are more powerful than their former guilmasters, no one has anything to teach them, the thing bothering the local caravans is not worth the time....
Investiture is another important concept. You have to find out what makes them care about a town or an area. My Mistonian group started out in a small, northern border town where the Giantclan Silverworth had taken over the town five years before, and the players were part of an underground trying to rescue the town while not letting the Gnolls and Ogres infesting the town onto what they were doing. I knew I had succeeded when the players screwed up a bit, and a PC's craft-brother (in the Turniper's farming commune) was beaten to death when keeping quiet about hiding them...when the PC started swearing revenge and the other players were stopping his character (and physically holding him down) from going into the town center after th Ogres...I knew I had hit the right nerve.
Give the players lots of opportunities for causes. It makes for a good book, it will make for a great game.
And when the GM takes a hiatus, they risk losing everything. The game is about the players, but it is your game. I'm on once once-a-month group and a once-every-three-weeks, for my 2 live groups, and my IM game is once every 2 weeks, and any less thn that you can lose them.
I wouldn't say success is just about some general "ggodness" of the DM or players, it's about the match. One way to achieve this, as LordVreeg suggested, is to find suitable players. The other way (if there is no extra supply of players) is to suit the players you have. Of course there may not be a match and the players like different style than the DM, in which case you have to either dump the players and find new ones, or change your style. In longer-running groups I suppose the styles may become compatible over time (I have experience of 18 years with the same group, and there are still big differences so don't hold your breath...)
There seems to be no universal, objective criteria for a successful setting - anything can be a success as long as it matches the group's tastes. That's what makes it so hard to create a universally successful published setting, it needs to fit very different styles of play.
I don't know that I will have much more to add to what everyone else already has said, but I will try.
[blockquote=LordVreeg]One of the first things that is important is finding players that match the campaign you want to run.[/blockquote]
Agreed. I recently relaunched my Eberron game as the two main players and I sat down after a few sessions and really talked about what they wanted their characters to do. We spent a 2-3 hours talking about goals, plans and what type of action they wanted to see. And it has been a great game since then.
[blockquote=Phoenix Knight]I would say, however, it probably had one of things we've discussed, in passing, which is a good GM. Whose running the campaign is an important aspect of the experience.[/blockquote]
To me what makes a good GM is one that listens. Players always say or do things that give depth to their characters that they don't even realize they do. As a GM I try to listen for these tidbits and then bring them up in the game at a later point. These mini plot hooks can help really flesh out a plot or tie the character to a major plot. Or they can be used as some filler between major adventures that helps ground the characters and helps them grow at the same time.
There have been a lot of good ideas here. Looking over the responses so far, I'm going to try to make an abstract summary of concepts that come up frequently.
Unity - The various adventures and events should be unified to create a sense of continuity and relevance. The adventures can be unified on theme, character, plot line, and/or setting. Probably more than one of these is needed to create strong unity, but no single one is absolutely necessary.
Engagement - The players need to be engaged in the campaign, not just passive consumers. The single most common way to do this seems to be trying to engage the back story and/or motivations of their characters. Another thing I've seen is to allow players to participate in choosing or designing elements of the campaign.
Make it matter - The characters' actions should have impact on the campaign, whether through plot, impact on the setting, or character growth and development.
Depth - The plot line and adventures should reveal a campaign that isn't just superficial. By creating secondary plots, recurring NPC's, background events that aren't directly related to the currently story line, you increase the impression of a whole world of options available to the characters.
These concepts aren't entirely distinct from each other. But they each suggest different techniques for improving a campaign. Any one of these could probably be the topic of a whole thread of discussion, so I'll leave it there for now.
Snakefing, this is really good stuff. You ought to consider refining and expanding this into a Guide article.
Unfortunately, my writing style just isn't very good for something like the Guide.
But as I have time, I might work on expanding this stuff and posting it here. I have lots of ideas on this - what is hard is to prune it back to the really useful stuff.
First of a series to address the elements of a successful campaign. It is written mostly in the form of advice to a GM, but many of the concepts may also be useful to non-GM players to create characters that will be interesting and successful in a given campaign.
(Note: Jeebus, this turned out to be long. Next up: Engagement.)
Unity
A campaign is a series of adventures, but a good campaign is more than just the sum total of those adventures. The adventures work together to create a unified whole, which provides greater context and meaning to the individual adventures. A campaign may be unified by common threads in one or more of its elements. The more elements are tied together, the more unified the campaign will be. Individual scenes or adventures gain extra significance from their relationship to these unifying aspects.
A campaign consists of several elements; broadly speaking, these are theme, setting, character, and plot. Any of these may serve as unifying elements, depending on your style and genre. A really successful campaign usually needs to be unified on two or more of these elements. Other elements may be less unified in order to provide greater variety.
As your campaign goes along, build on your unifying elements by designing adventures that put those aspects front and center. Interesting variety can be achieved by exploring or portraying those aspects from different perspectives, or by interchanging and juxtaposing various different unifying elements. For each adventure and each session, think about how it relates to the various unifying elements. Try to design and plan your sessions so these elements will naturally play a major role; that way you won't have to be self-conscious about them during play.
When starting a new campaign, try to communicate your unifying concepts with the players. First, you'll find out right away if something doesn't sit well with them. Second, they'll be able to create characters that mesh well with each other and the intended direction of your campaign. Lastly, they will probably have good ideas of their own that may affect your plans.
Theme
Theme may be expressed either in a literary sense, or in the more colloquial usage referring to any collection of common elements. For example, a more literary theme might be, "Pride goeth before a fall," while more casual themes might include whimsical humor or chthonic horrors.
If you are using a unifying theme, you'll probably want to look at the player characters to see how they relate to it. You might have to tweak your theme, or suggest some alternative character concepts that fit better. This can seem heavy-handed, so don't overuse it. For this reason, some themes may work better as secondary unifying elements. For example, pride and humility are only relevant to certain character concepts, so this theme might serve a unifying purpose for some characters and not for others.
Themes can be expressed through the situations and dilemmas that are presented to the characters, by example through the actions of NPC's, or by emphasizing people, places and things in the setting that exemplify the theme. The theme may also be heightened by incorporating its opposite at times, for contrast. A pervasive sense of dread and doom may seem all the darker when contrasted with the occasional bit of peace and bliss.
Setting
A unified setting implies that the adventures will take place in and generally pertain to some specific locale of the game world. Depending on the genre and power level, this could be an entire planet, a kingdom, a village, or even a single interdimensional transit hub. A less-unified setting may occur in a campaign where the characters travel widely, or one where the adventures and actions aren't directly related to the setting.
To be useful as a unifying element, the setting needs to be fairly rich and should have a character all its own. Characters may be created with an explicit connection to the setting, such as the sons and daughters of a noble house and its demesnes. Or they may be tied to the setting by holding positions of responsibility. This way, things that occur in and around the setting can have direct impact on the character's honor, responsibilities, prestige, and/or fortunes. The flip side of this is true also - the characters' actions will have a direct impact on the nature and progress of the setting, or at least those parts they have direct responsibility for.
Perhaps the archetype of setting-dominated games would be Ars Magica, where characters are encouraged to play wizards that are part of an enclave or community. In such a game, the players could even switch back and forth between different characters without disrupting the continuity, as long as they all relate to the same enclave.
Character
Character can be a strong unifying element, by focusing on the personality and personal growth of each character. This can be especially true if the characters in question also go along with a theme. For example, you might follow the growth of a group of friends as they go from callow youths to respected adults and finally to wise and benevolent leaders. Follow this up with a theme of Maturity, and you've got a lot of pretty powerful stuff to play with.
One downside here is that this element requires the most cooperation out of the non-GM players to pull off. It is hard to get this going if your players aren't up to it, or if the characters are too diverse. To successfully use this as a unifying element, you'll have to look at each character and talk to each player to identify an anticipated path of character development. What does the character want, and why? Then design adventures and situations that will provide the opportunity for growth and development. At times, this can lead to some surprising twists and turns. The paladin who has to renounce his vows in order to return home and protect his own family, or the young bravo who takes up the mantle of responsibility, have undergone elements of character growth that are interesting in their own right.
In a character-dominant game, continuity of plot may be disrupted by such unanticipated changes in character, but this doesn't weaken the campaign. On the other hand, in a plot-dominant campaign, you would probably want to discourage such changes unless they are consistent with the unifying plot elements.
Plot
No element is more talked about, and more misunderstood, than plot. As soon as you start thinking about plot, there is a risk that the GM will get in her head an idea of how the sequence of events ought to go, and then engineer the game to get there. (Choo! Choo! All aboard!) At the same time, plot is one of the more powerful unifying elements - it allows us to fashion a narrative around the game events, and this in turn provides direction and meaning. And a plot usually won't create itself - it has to be nurtured.
The best way to think about plot is as an over-arching conflict or goal that engages the character. The story is in how the characters try to resolve the conflict or achieve the goal. Each adventure advances the story in some way. It may advance them a step toward their goal, reveal important information, or even simply set the stage for future adventures. As you design and run an adventure, think about the role it plays in the larger plot, and pitch the level of detail and the emphasis accordingly.
Plot elements are especially good at creating sub-plots. Each character may (should) have their own goals and conflicts besides the over-arching one. You can design the details and story line elements to directly engage these sub-plots, so each character's individual story line advances through the campaign as well.
For example, you might create an adventure to rescue the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy merchant. As far as the overall plot goes, this seems like a small side adventure, but it does introduce some political factions that will probably be important enemies in the future. So you don't want to spend too much time on this (as a side adventure), and you'll want to make sure that the appropriate political factions are given enough attention to make them memorable.
Here's an alternative way of looking at the unity of a campaign. Whereas my previous post looked specifically (and in excessive detail) at the types of unity and how they can be constructed, this approaches the concept more generically, with a focus on what each player can do to improve the campaign. It is also shorter and easier to read.
Unity (Mk II)
How can you promote the unity of a campaign? This isn't just an issue for the GM, it also involves the players making choices that enhance unity, or at least don't undermine it.
First things: Start by identifying what the unifying elements of the campaign are. For most campaigns, there is some degree of unifying theme or plot, but sometimes it isn't well-stated. Also, make sure to communicate this so all players. The first step is always knowing what you are trying to do, and making sure that everyone is on the same page.
For adventures: For each adventure and/or session, ask yourself how it contributes to the unity of the campaign. As GM, you should be able to answer this, and there's nothing wrong with giving at least some of this information to the other players. (Without spoiling any surprises, of course.) If you aren't GM, you may have to trust the GM a bit here; then again, if you don't have some clue, it will be harder for you to contribute positively.
For characters: What aspects of the character's abilities, personality, or background will actively engage the unifying elements? (If there aren't any, you better add some or get a new character - this character isn't fitting in.) What aspects of the character can be used to create sub-plots or secondary themes? These can help provide continuity and motivation that encourage greater unity from that character's POV. Of course, sub-plots have to be consistent with the overall unity of the campaign.
For players: How do you expect to have fun by working with the unifying elements? If it isn't exactly your cup of tea, maybe you need a new campaign, or maybe you need to adjust your expectations or have fun in a different way. All this applies to you if you are GM too - you are also a player in the game, albeit one with a specific and different role.
Second in a series of posts on the elements of a good campaign. This one concerns engagement, that is, getting and keeping all the players engaged in and participating in the campaign.
I'm not sure why, but I'll follow the convention of referring to players as "she" and their characters as "he". YMMV
Engagement
The game is better for everyone when all the players are engaged, A disengaged player creates a drag: things have to be repeated, or the others wait for her to take her turn, or the player (or her character) engages in disruptive behavior in a futile attempt to "liven things up."
To get a player engaged, you have to start by understanding what she wants out of the game, and then creating some scope for her to seek that out through her participation. Since different players may want different things, this can be a delicate balancing act. All players need to help out in this balance. For example, don't hog the action, nor rush past scenes that you don't find interesting but others do. In the same vein, do keep an eye on the other players and try to move along if they show signs of restlessness.
Playing an RPG involves a number of different facets. It is a game, it is role-playing. It is also a social event, at least for F2F games. Some players like the stimulation of challenges and competition. Others like the flights of imagination, or the act of creating and authoring a story. Most of us like all these things, to some extent or another, so a good game should strike a balance in these elements, depending on what your players really like. Leave enough space for fun social interactions, joking around, and chit-chat if your players want that. Design puzzles, competitions, or tactical challenges for the players who like that sort of thing. Add in some politics and diplomacy role-playing for the more hard-core roleplayers. And give the more creative or imaginative types some space to create their own stories.
Another way to engage your players is to engage the backgrounds and hooks they've built into their characters. Presumably they built their characters that way for a reason - there is something they thought would be fun about those characters. Try to find out what that is, and encourage encounters and adventures that showcase those aspects of the characters. And be sure to spend as much of the actual play time as possible on those parts of the game.
Don't forget that you (the GM) are a player too. If you become bored or disengaged, the whole game will become a chore and the other players will surely notice. Try to understand what it is about the campaign that you expect to have fun with, and be sure to include your own interests on an equal footing with all the other players'. And don't be afraid to take a break from time to time - maybe just to spend a session playing some board game, or put the dice away and play a pure role-playing session, or haul out the battle mat for a mindless dungeon crawl.
Above all, pay attention to the interest level. If it starts to drop, talk to all the players to figure out where things are headed and how to re-invigorate the game.
Rule number one for me would be to mix it up. It's okay to have a single, overarching plotline, but I think it's better if you complicate it a little. Each character and each villain should have their own goals, for example (who's on who's side will change with the circumstances) and there should be new complications in achieving these goals every so often, not just in the sense of opposition by another group, but in the category of just having stuff happen.
In addition, I think RPGs by default shouldn't have too tightly focused a genre. Same goes for heroic origins or what have you.
This isn't literature... this is something you're going to be doing once a week for (hopefully) a very long time. I think it's best to mix it up whenever possible.
I guess what I'm saying is unity isn't my thing. Granted, there is a point at which there's too much. A campaign can be a steampunk/post-apoc/Dunsanian fantasy mash up, but throwing superheroes in would be a bad idea. Likewise, while recurring villains and evil twins and scheming viziers and virtuous (but stern) kings are all staples of gaming, it's best to have a single goal for a given adventure, and at most three complications that are in any way recurring. (You need to accomplish x, but w and y won't have it, whereas z will help you accomplish it and try to steal the credit... or something). Even so, a one goal/one conflict game session (let alone one conflict/one goal campaign) will tend to get old. That's where we get things like monolithic good and evil, fighting monsters to get loot, and overtly conventional plot structures (at the expense of neat tricks like en media res, cliffhangers, and the "twist" ending... maybe a little over the top, but again... it's gaming, not lit.)
I have two reactions:
First, I agree that mixing things up is important to keep things fresh. The same might be said of mixing genres (within reason) - to keep things from becoming too predictable or stale. This kind of gets into more concrete suggestions, unlike the stuff I've been writing which has been very abstract and high-level. Maybe a more concrete approach would yield some more interesting ideas.
Second, I still think that some form of unity is important. But maybe we are talking about different things. By unity, I mean something that joins the adventures or sessions together to form a greater whole. It could be plot line, character development, common themes, etc.
Still, I think you are getting at something useful in your last graf. Different characters in your group may need different conflicts, sub-plots, or goals. Unity is achieved both on a group basis and an individual basis, I think. Concentrating too much on one aspect or another may make the campaign too monolithic in one extreme, or too fragmented to really gell in the other extreme.
[blockquote=beejazz]This isn't literature... this is something you're going to be doing once a week for (hopefully) a very long time. I think it's best to mix it up whenever possible.[/blockquote]
Interesting. I take the exact other viewpoint normally, in that I try to use the 'literature' approach for campaign design and plot design. I consider my setting to be a book we are writing, and I try to even look at it in chapter format and even sequel format. I'm not saying that a good book shouldn't have twists and turns and surprises, merely that I do look at it as literature, and when the game resembles a good book, I consider it succesful.
@Vereg: I'd compare my stuff more to a television show, if that's any help. It's maybe a little tighter than a television show would play out (alot of the animes I watch would devolve into PvP rather quickly... rival protagonists being fairly staple) but certainly not as tight as a book would be (unless you're counting the truly wild things, like American Desert).
@snakefing: I think my idea is that one shouldn't *start* with unity. It's important to distinguish "from many, one" from, say "from one... more of the same." A central core is important (the world is going to end in 86 days when the asteroid strikes) but one should not forget the periphery (panic ensues... you might be able to stave off the end if only people stopped looting for five minutes... by the way, there's this lone kid who can't find her family in the panic, etc. etc. etc.) A skilled GM knows when to diverge and when to converge subplots, and when to begin in the beginning and end in the end or whether it's a better idea to throw in some en media res and cliffhangers.