D&D 5E Who Picks the Campaign? DMs, Players, and Choice

[overgeeked]

The flipside is that if the players are not invested there is only a slightly better chance it will last.

Not to sound harsh, but there are at least ten players to every one DM. You can find players.

If I spend time making a Dark Sun campaign and then spring it on the players in session 0 when they pick armor and weapons.

No need to “spring” it on them. Last time I ran Dark Sun 5E I had 13 players and 20-some wanting spots. It’s a DM’s market.

It would be easy to just say to get new players. I'm not sure how many DMs play is a situation where they do not have a normal group. I could see this in a game where the DM comes to the FLGS and announces his game and the players buy in early.

We’re how many decades into the pandemic? It’s dead simple to put up an ad for players and get a game running online over voice, video, discord, VTT, TiVo, Zoom, FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video...whatever.

 

[Voadam]

My style is normally to run a game in a specific world I know using modules and be comfortable enough to riff and go with whatever the players decide, using those as frameworks to work from. I have a lot of modules that can cover a bunch of options so if something does not work out for a group ("we are so done with these slavers and their stockade, we are getting on a boat and going to Greyhawk!") I can adjust and keep going. I knew Greyhawk and Ravenloft and Oathbound Wildwood well when I ran them, and I know my homebrew setting well in my own head.

The couple of times I have not had a specific setting for one shots it has been fine, generic D&D land works for D&D.

I have occasionally winged adventures entirely, particularly when my son was young and it was just him or him and a friend. They turned out fantastic and we all had a blast. It was not a campaign though, usually lots of one shots, sometimes with my son playing the same character.

I enjoy taking player interests and elements and developing them into the setting and adventures and riff off of them in play. I do that with my games a lot and I expect it could be a lot of fun to go full improv director and build entirely off of player provided elements and see how you can weave them in at different points.

Different styles.

A DM excited to weave in stuff will be engaged. A DM passively saying whatever because he is checked out and does not care could be a warning sign. A DM not caring about the setting because they are focused on the specific adventure and the larger setting is not that big a concern can still be an engaged DM though.

 

[Umbran]

The issue is just that some of us can feel invested without necessarily having to have originated the idea.

And this rests in a very simple thing - there's not just one idea in a campaign. There's a whole slew of ideas. We are talking about getting the player's take on a few of them before setting up the rest.

 

[AtomicPope]

Many, many moons ago when I was 21 and returning home for the summer I was roped into running a game I didn't want to run or play, and using a system I was already bored with. Never again. It was the worst feeling, forcing myself to care for and create a mini-campaign. I lasted only two sessions before I put an end to it. And I'm never doing that again. Creating a campaign has to go both ways. The players should be playing what they want, and the DM should be running what they want. Then everyone meets in the middle.

Right now my Friday group is going through this phase. We're ending a very fun campaign, losing a player to Dad Duty™, and trying to decide what's next. Here's how we usually decide on the game:
1) What do we want to play? System, genre, themes... the general stuff.
2) What types of characters do we want?
3) What does the DM want to run?
4) How long are we planning to play this campaign?

We have had some interesting outcomes that met in the middle and outlasted question #4. I wanted to play Star Wars, the players wanted to continue a D&D game that was previously canceled, so I shoe-horned Spelljammer into the game. They got to keep their 3rd level characters and just move them into a new campaign. Honestly, it was way better than I expected. Their characters were well defined as they already played them for a few months. It was easier to build a campaign around that. We were only planning on going to 10th level but it lasted for nearly 4 years and deep into 20th level.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now, I understand the counterargument to this- what about the DM that sucks? What about the DM that is so invested with telling the DM's story that the DM doesn't allow the players to breathe? What about railroading? And these are all good points- sometimes, you will find that a DM who is heavily invested in her campaign is the same DM who demands that the campaign play out a certain way - and that's no fun. No one wants to be a token in the DM's boardgame, or a character in the DM's creepy fiction. But the thing is- that can be true of any DM, even the uncaring ones.

Since this is the meat of your argument, I figure it best to address this bit (well, that and the fact that you so strongly dislike my usual style of posting.)

And the thing is...this isn't the relevant counter-argument, at least not for me.

The relevant counter-argument is, "But what about the DM that feeds on player creativity in order to be creative herself? What about the DM that struggles to get invested in things unless they already know the players are invested?"

You presented a DM polling their players as if it were the most horrific thing in existence--as if it were a DM completely abdicating any and all authorship or direction and running a setting by committee. And that's...just emphatically not what I would ever do, even though I absolutely DO "poll" my players, regularly requesting feedback and analysis, floating ideas or requesting prospective adventure things that the players think sound fun.

See, I suffer a really severe problem with analysis paralysis when it comes to writing, or as I prefer to call it, "the tyranny of the empty page," and I don't mean "writer's block" by that (even though some use that phrase to describe writer's block). For me, it's that if I'm merely given the prompt of "do whatever you like," I can't conjure a single damn thing to mind. The absolute freedom to do whatever I like becomes an inhibition, invisible bars as strong as iron that completely surround me. I've had this problem since I was eight, doing creative writing assignments for school in 2nd grade.

Give me a specific prompt, on the other hand--sometimes as minimally specific as "tell a story about a particularly strong sensation you experienced in the past"--and suddenly my mind is racing with ideas, it's as if the words leap from my mind like the arrow that springs from the bow. That is why I poll (or, rather, more like "interview") my players about what they want to see. Because even something as simple as "y'know, I'd like to do some more archaeology stuff, that very first foray we had was pretty cool and we haven't done much like that in a while" is enough to grease the wheels of my creativity and send me off to the races.

And my players would be the first to tell you that I do not abdicate the creative process whatsoever. I'm dead certain you've seen me babble about the devil/demon stuff, among other bits and bobs of the setting that I'm quite proud of, and which are 100% my creation, without any player input. However, when I do get player input, that makes me even more excited, it jazzes me up, gets me pumped for doing new things, exploring new ideas. Such player input is also absolutely vital for my improvisation; I emphatically could not run sessions with half the interesting ideas, situations, or events if I weren't inspired by the things my players contribute.

As an example, we've just had our party Bard accept and partially step into his role as (effectively) a Moses-like figure for an assassin cult, because in completing their initiation rites at a secret shrine in the desert, he has discovered a way to rehabilitate them into productive, non-murdery members of society without violating their beliefs. This was driven by a variety of things, but the original seed came from conversations I had with this player back before the original Session 0. The player asked, "Hey, can I play a tiefling? I just like the concept." So I said okay, and then asked, "Which of your parents is a tiefling?" He thought for a moment and replied, "Both of them, actually." BOOM. Suddenly I had a HUGE story hook--having two tiefling parents of different fiendish ancestry. A good quarter of all the adventures the party has had ultimately grew out of that conversation, which could ONLY have happened by asking the player what HE wanted and not simply dictating to the player what I intended to run.

So...yeah. I'm not interested in using bad DMs as a counter-argument, because honestly, it doesn't matter what kind of campaign is being run if it's being run badly, you know? I'm talking about how I could not run anywhere near as fun a game as I do if I did not, on a semi-regular basis, solicit requests and suggestions from my players. This does NOT mean I'm some hands-off DM who doesn't create anything unless I get it signed in triplicate by my players. It just means that I really only thrive as a DM when I'm using a combination of stuff I find interesting and stuff my players have (directly or indirectly) told me they find interesting.

 

[payn]

Since this is the meat of your argument, I figure it best to address this bit (well, that and the fact that you so strongly dislike my usual style of posting.)

And the thing is...this isn't the relevant counter-argument, at least not for me.

The relevant counter-argument is, "But what about the DM that feeds on player creativity in order to be creative herself? What about the DM that struggles to get invested in things unless they already know the players are invested?"

You presented a DM polling their players as if it were the most horrific thing in existence--as if it were a DM completely abdicating any and all authorship or direction and running a setting by committee. And that's...just emphatically not what I would ever do, even though I absolutely DO "poll" my players, regularly requesting feedback and analysis, floating ideas or requesting prospective adventure things that the players think sound fun.

See, I suffer a really severe problem with analysis paralysis when it comes to writing, or as I prefer to call it, "the tyranny of the empty page," and I don't mean "writer's block" by that (even though some use that phrase to describe writer's block). For me, it's that if I'm merely given the prompt of "do whatever you like," I can't conjure a single damn thing to mind. The absolute freedom to do whatever I like becomes an inhibition, invisible bars as strong as iron that completely surround me. I've had this problem since I was eight, doing creative writing assignments for school in 2nd grade.

Give me a specific prompt, on the other hand--sometimes as minimally specific as "tell a story about a particularly strong sensation you experienced in the past"--and suddenly my mind is racing with ideas, it's as if the words leap from my mind like the arrow that springs from the bow. That is why I poll (or, rather, more like "interview") my players about what they want to see. Because even something as simple as "y'know, I'd like to do some more archaeology stuff, that very first foray we had was pretty cool and we haven't done much like that in a while" is enough to grease the wheels of my creativity and send me off to the races.

And my players would be the first to tell you that I do not abdicate the creative process whatsoever. I'm dead certain you've seen me babble about the devil/demon stuff, among other bits and bobs of the setting that I'm quite proud of, and which are 100% my creation, without any player input. However, when I do get player input, that makes me even more excited, it jazzes me up, gets me pumped for doing new things, exploring new ideas. Such player input is also absolutely vital for my improvisation; I emphatically could not run sessions with half the interesting ideas, situations, or events if I weren't inspired by the things my players contribute.

As an example, we've just had our party Bard accept and partially step into his role as (effectively) a Moses-like figure for an assassin cult, because in completing their initiation rites at a secret shrine in the desert, he has discovered a way to rehabilitate them into productive, non-murdery members of society without violating their beliefs. This was driven by a variety of things, but the original seed came from conversations I had with this player back before the original Session 0. The player asked, "Hey, can I play a tiefling? I just like the concept." So I said okay, and then asked, "Which of your parents is a tiefling?" He thought for a moment and replied, "Both of them, actually." BOOM. Suddenly I had a HUGE story hook--having two tiefling parents of different fiendish ancestry. A good quarter of all the adventures the party has had ultimately grew out of that conversation, which could ONLY have happened by asking the player what HE wanted and not simply dictating to the player what I intended to run.

So...yeah. I'm not interested in using bad DMs as a counter-argument, because honestly, it doesn't matter what kind of campaign is being run if it's being run badly, you know? I'm talking about how I could not run anywhere near as fun a game as I do if I did not, on a semi-regular basis, solicit requests and suggestions from my players. This does NOT mean I'm some hands-off DM who doesn't create anything unless I get it signed in triplicate by my players. It just means that I really only thrive as a DM when I'm using a combination of stuff I find interesting and stuff my players have (directly or indirectly) told me they find interesting.

I know where you are coming from. One of the reasons I like running Adventure Paths and modules is I need a foundation under my feet. I need inspiration to kickstart my imagination so that I can start forming up my own campaign. I have never been able to homebrew up something from nothing. Every attempt is just a milk-toast offering the players dont engage with. I dont feel too bad, because I have seen others pour their hearts into making homebrew settings that the players just dont react to. I've come to the conclusion that hacking published stuff is the best way to go for anybody. Though, its encouraging to hear about your successes and player involvement. I am envious.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you start with a theme and pick mechanics to fit that theme (regardless of how good or bad the system's mechanics are that support that theme)? Do you pick mechanics and add on a theme after you've picked mechanics? Do you do a bit of both? Start with a theme but modify it a bit based on what mechanics interest you during character creation or start with mechanics and modify them a little based on whatever themes you come up with around them?

This sounds exactly like discussions around character creation processes. It seems to me like it's not so much about the particular recipe you use to create a dessert or character or campaign, but rather it's whether the end result yields an invested GM and players (or tasty dessert). As long as that's the outcome then you are doing it right.

 

[Umbran]

Do you start with a theme and pick mechanics to fit that theme (regardless of how good or bad the system's mechanics are that support that theme)? Do you pick mechanics and add on a theme after you've picked mechanics?

When I have these conversatiosn with my players, what system we are working with is one of the choices to be made - so I usually wind up in either "pick themes, and pick system to fit" or "pick game, pick themes that are naturally supported". I rarely have square peg, round hole issues with system and theme.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I have these conversatiosn with my players, what system we are working with is one of the choices to be made - so I usually wind up in either "pick themes, and pick system to fit" or "pick game, pick themes that are naturally supported". I rarely have square peg, round hole issues with system and theme.

You seem to be reading those comments as related to picking which game you are playing which was not what I meant (I probably could have been more clear). I meant picking the theme for your character and picking what mechanics to match that theme in character creation. I believe what Snarf is getting at in terms of choosing a campaign is at worst a distant cousin of that same kind of process (and discussion which has been had here many times) and in the best case very similar to such processes and discussions - in that the same principles apply. 'Whatever lets you be creative and be invested'

 

[Umbran]

You seem to be reading those comments as related to picking which game you are playing which was not what I meant (I probably could have been more clear). I meant picking the theme for your character and picking what mechanics to match that theme in character creation. I believe what Snarf is getting at in terms of choosing a campaign is at worst a distant cousin of that same kind of process (and discussion which has been had here many times) and in the best case very to such processes and discussions.

Well, that's kind of what I thought you were doing - analogizing between campaign and character generation.

And, I think what I suggested still sort of holds - You have two basic routes - pick themes, and pick mechanic to match, or pick mechanics, and then restrict yourself to the themes those mechanics support.