The Campaign Builder's Guild

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 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.

It also goes along the lines of some noodling 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.