D&D (2024) Picking a New Campaign - Am I the only one that makes it difficult.

[TheSword]

So one of the advantages/disadvantages of DMing three simultaneous TTRPG groups and playing in a 4th is that the weighty question of what campaign to run next comes up more often than normal. I’ve bought myself a few months of planning and preparation as one of my players is going to run a mini campaign for the summer - but eventually a decision must be made.

I find the decisions pretty tough. I have high expectations. Not only does it need to be something the players will enjoy, but it has to be something I’m inspired to run. It has to be customizable but not too much work. It needs to be a campaign at least 10 levels but not too long. I’m really lucky that we have a general principle that the DM does the work so the DM gets to pick… that’s a lot of responsibility though when our campaigns generally run for 1-2 years. Sometimes longer. For the record I’m currently running the Enemy Within for one group and the Age of Worms for another, and have just finished Odyssey of the Dragon Lords - which, while a lot of fun, was very combat heavy and fairly shallow. I’m itching for something geographically tied to one location or city with a lot more roleplay.

My original idea was to do a Dark Sun conversion of Hells Rebels set in Tyr dealing with the overthrow of Kalak. I had some cool ideas but the news about Dark Sun definitely not getting a release definitely put me off. I was also a bit frustrated when putting together the players pack for the campaign with all these wonderful weapons and strange materials two players decided to play a soul knife and a monk to avoid the sacrifice in power. I realised that maybe this wasn’t going to be as fulfilling as I wanted it to be. It would be a lot of work to do the conversion and if the players weren’t going to get into the vibe… well I just thought it wasn’t worth it.

Then I considered Kingmaker 5e but to be honest this group doesn’t do well with sub-games and I don’t think the kingdom building element would work. without that, Kingmaker loses a lot of its punch.

I considered a 5e version of the original Baldurs Gate followed up with Descent into Avernus. But to be honest Descent into Avernus is so badly put together that I couldn’t muster the enthusiasm for much more than a day. That would be an ideal campaign for a new group that would find it all more wondrous and would appreciate the simpler structure, but wouldn’t work for my more jaded group of veterans.

I’ve settled (for the moment) on a 5e adaption of WFRPs Paths of the Damned partly after reading a very good campaign review/journal by @Charles Dunwoody . I’m bringing all three parts to one City, Salzenmund in the north, so the players can get to know a place well and build contacts and relationships. It should work very well…

… unless of course I change my mind in two weeks. Why am I so fickle when it comes to choosing campaigns? Am I the only one that can never make their mind up? How do you find it/approach the question?

 

[billd91]

It's generally harder to get all of my players to agree than it is for me to settle in to the choice I'm making. That's because I can't control what they want to do, but I can control myself. If I'm reasonably enthusiastic about something, I can make it work for me even if I've got to take some time and effort in adapting it.
For example, I'm running a 5e adaptation of Age of Worms and even though I'm using the conversion done by Tormyr as a base, I'm still tweaking most encounters for my group (which is unusually large) and making edits to the campaign. I'm doing this because I wanted to run it and my players were sufficiently wooed by the pitch to participate. So your dilemma with either Kingmaker or Dark Sun wouldn't really be an issue for me.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

… unless of course I change my mind in two weeks. Why am I so fickle when it comes to choosing campaigns? Am I the only one that can never make their mind up? How do you find it/approach the question?

I struggle every time I start a new campaign, especially if I want it to last a good long while. I don't think you're fickle, I think you want to get it right.

My struggle is balancing what all my players want in a ruleset, with each player's individual ability, and what inspires me as a GM. It takes a while to find the right balance and even then I sometimes have to drag a few players along to get them on board.

I think you need to run what inspires you. Both from a setting and rules perspective. I don't run anything any of my player absolutely hate, but I do run things some of them aren't exactly highly excited for. I don't have a choice if I both want to get a campaign going and not burn out along the way.

I always let my players know why I made the decision for the setting and rules I'm using. I try to get them all onboard. This does take some diplomacy but in the end I'm doing the work. They usually agree to give what I'm doing a shot.

That thrill and fear of creating something from nothing is both exhilarating and terrifying. If I get the mix right, it keeps me going as a GM.

If there is anything else I can share about the Warhammer campaign that you think will help, please let me know.

 

[Retreater]

You've probably read by other posts on here about struggling to find the best fit for my groups. I've been running multiple campaigns for a few years now (close to a decade). I've run about everything available from WotC.
A realization I've been coming to lately is what I'm experiencing is burnout and diminishing returns. I've run so much for so long that it would take an honest to goodness masterpiece of a campaign to stick out in my mind.
I don't think there's a campaign that I can prep enough to make sure it's a great fit. I don't think there's some magic concoction of balanced encounters and intrigue and creative world building, etc.
The realization is that I can't be amazed by anything anymore.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

You've probably read by other posts on here about struggling to find the best fit for my groups. I've been running multiple campaigns for a few years now (close to a decade). I've run about everything available from WotC.
A realization I've been coming to lately is what I'm experiencing is burnout and diminishing returns. I've run so much for so long that it would take an honest to goodness masterpiece of a campaign to stick out in my mind.
I don't think there's a campaign that I can prep enough to make sure it's a great fit. I don't think there's some magic concoction of balanced encounters and intrigue and creative world building, etc.
The realization is that I can't be amazed by anything anymore.

If you want my opinion, I see two possibilities happening. You could be tired of GMing in any capacity, in which case I'd suggest you play as a player for a while. Not always easy to do, I know, you might have to find an online group to join.

I do have one other thought. You say you're running WotC adventures. If I'm reading that correctly, you have a campaign outline for level say 1-10 and you run your players through the entire book. The players level up and get to create a certain type of character they like this way.

If that is the case, read on. Otherwise what I'm going to say next may not apply to you.

I do not like players planning out characters through multiple levels. And I will not run campaigns simply to allow a table to level up and add game mechanics to a sheet of paper.

Why? Because it is boring. The players might as well play a computer game.

I only write one adventure ahead. And I use random encounters and NPCs with various agendas the PCs may align with or against. One adventure ahead means I'm building on what happened last game. Random encounters and NPCs that aren't just good or evil means I'm surprised. Surprised by encounters I didn't expect and surprised by the NPCs the PCs choose to like or hate.

I also learn to love each individual PC as they do crazy things, build relations with NPCs they decide they like, and rooting for them however they handle crazy random encounters that no one could expect.

This approach is better than any computer game. The PCs can react in any way and I can be one step ahead reacting. Which keeps it fresh for me and exciting. I don't know what is going to happen the next week. And I'm rooting for the PCs' crazy plans to come to fruition and succeed. And when they don't, I help steer things along the waterslide.

I call this a waterslide rather than a railroad from a YouTube video I watched. The PCs are always sliding downhill, but I create various slides they can shoot into. They pick the slide, but I have an idea which direction things are going. It works well and keeps me energized.

It is counter-intuitive. You'd think having several adventures planned would be less stressful. But that method locks you in to running someone's else's adventure rather than your table's adventure. I always find working for myself more enjoyable even if it is more work.

 

[Oofta]

If you want my opinion, I see two possibilities happening. You could be tired of GMing in any capacity, in which case I'd suggest you play as a player for a while. Not always easy to do, I know, you might have to find an online group to join.

I do have one other thought. You say you're running WotC adventures. If I'm reading that correctly, you have a campaign outline for level say 1-10 and you run your players through the entire book. The players level up and get to create a certain type of character they like this way.

If that is the case, read on. Otherwise what I'm going to say next may not apply to you.

I do not like players planning out characters through multiple levels. And I will not run campaigns simply to allow a table to level up and add game mechanics to a sheet of paper.

Why? Because it is boring. The players might as well play a computer game.

I only write one adventure ahead. And I use random encounters and NPCs with various agendas the PCs may align with or against. One adventure ahead means I'm building on what happened last game. Random encounters and NPCs that aren't just good or evil means I'm surprised. Surprised by encounters I didn't expect and surprised by the NPCs the PCs choose to like or hate.

I also learn to love each individual PC as they do crazy things, build relations with NPCs they decide they like, and rooting for them however they handle crazy random encounters that no one could expect.

This approach is better than any computer game. The PCs can react in any way and I can be one step ahead reacting. Which keeps it fresh for me and exciting. I don't know what is going to happen the next week. And I'm rooting for the PCs' crazy plans to come to fruition and succeed. And when they don't, I help steer things along the waterslide.

I call this a waterslide rather than a railroad from a YouTube video I watched. The PCs are always sliding downhill, but I create various slides they can shoot into. They pick the slide, but I have an idea which direction things are going. It works well and keeps me energized.

It is counter-intuitive. You'd think having several adventures planned would be less stressful. But that method locks you in to running someone's else's adventure rather than your table's adventure. I always find working for myself more enjoyable even if it is more work.

I do much the same. I have broad outlines of potential threats and possible campaign arcs but that's it. I happen to use the same campaign world most of the time but the region changes and the timeline may move forward by a century. I focus on the setting, the actors, the motivations and goals of the actors along with what the players interests are. I'll likely have a session or so planned for the intro to the campaign but after that? Who knows where we're going.

If I improvise a conversation overheard about all of a town's pigs being turned purple, I'm perfectly okay if they decide to ignore the threat of a vampire incursion to solve the mystery of the purple pig. All I ask is that at the end of a session the players vote on what they want to do so I can flesh out ideas for the next session or four and actually prep the next session. I typically have 3-5 open threads people can choose from, along with whatever they may come up with.

 

[TheSword]

If there is anything else I can share about the Warhammer campaign that you think will help, please let me know.

Thank you for the update and explanation. I have two questions really.

How did you find the balance between fights and investigation in Paths of the Damned?

and How did moving locations between major cities affect how the campaign played out. Was it a good thing to move?

I’ve never thought of random encounters surprising the DM too. Definitely worth me thinking about them to keep things fresh then.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Thank you for the update and explanation. I have two questions really.

How did you find the balance between fights and investigation in Paths of the Damned?

and How did moving locations between major cities affect how the campaign played out. Was it a good thing to move?

I’ve never thought of random encounters surprising the DM too. Definitely worth me thinking about them to keep things fresh then.

Good questions.

What I remember from PotD is Sergeant Schultz. The PCs really liked him and used him as an ongoing resource. I played him up as brassy loud but brave and that resonated with them. I was able to then include roleplaying to weave investigation and fights together. If I remember correctly, cultists were running around the city so the PCs had opportunities to fight if things slowed down too much. So we struck a good balance and I could use Schultz to steer things if I felt play bogging down. The PCs encouraged this so it worked well.

Switching cities worked fine and I remember a dwarven settlement as well. I made sure to describe the differences between locations and I always bring in NPCs that seem to fit the mood and feel of a location for PCs to interact with. Exploring the Old World was actually a highlight of PotD so it worked well. The sheer size of the Old World helped ground the PCs and help them understand how high the stakes really were. Especially when they had friends who were NPCs who would suffer if the PCs failed.