How much buy-in from the players do you need before you start a campaign?

[Nagol]

I share the expected genre, world/timeframe, and tech-level/magic prevalence with the group and suggest which game rules I'd like to use for it.

I'll talk with the players to set up the starting scenario, as necessary. this is especially necessary in those game engines where character design can add/affect areas of the world (like CHAMPIONS Hunteds, DNPCS, Follwers, etc.)

As a player, I hate bait-and-switch campaigns. A character may be surprised as to his situation, but the player should walk in eyes open.

A couple of infamous campaigns that were bait and switched (and fell apart because of it) were the following:

"Let's play Aftermath! set on the Mississippi River in a recent fall! <OK, we roll characters, one is a fighter pilot originally stationed in California who ejected during the fall -- had all the skills for the job> -- Look! you found the hatch out to the rest of the Ark Starship! Each habitat is 20 miles across."

and

"I want to run classic Traveler! <sounds fun> Well, I'd prefer to run a newer ruleset -- we'll make characters in T20! <roll up characters> Well, I think I want to move backward in time to the dawn of spaceflight -- we'll make d20 Modern characters! <roll up new characters> Oh look! The fantasy realm is invading!"

 

[WHW4]

Our regimen goes something like this:

1. We roundtable what we want to play. Usually someone has a pet system or two they'll try and push, but we all enjoy just about everything if it has dice or a character sheet, so it's usually "what do we want to run first, then for the next campaign." We have all taken turns DMing so we have a thousand loose campaign settings to take off on.

2. Whoever feels the most comfortable with the game system we're going to play usually runs it, or if they want to get their feet wet and/or the group is just test running the system to see if we dig it. Also we sometimes have alternating game (too many games too little time) nights, so one week we might play M&M, the next it'll be Star Wars, so whoever is running one is not asked to run the other, obviously.

3. We play! We usually know within a couple sessions whether it's fun or not, or if we want to take some elements from the game and trash the rest. Sometimes things start slow (Star Wars Saga was this way, I didn't really start getting into it until we got starships).

When I start DMing, I first tell the players that I'm not going to screw anyone over, and I'm not going to tell you what to play. We might TWEAK something you bring, but I leave PC design and concept to the player. If you are just gung-ho set on playing an elf, and elves are hunted for sport in this particular setting, well sir - roll up an elf, and we'll figure something out. I'm very PC-friendly I guess you could say.

I always ask after each session if everyone had fun. Just point blank; and if someone looks miffed at the table, I take note for myself to figure out what maybe went wrong on my end (if anything) and try to steer the fun back on track for them. For me, it's all about fun. My fun, your fun, his fun, her fun. If even one person is sitting there grumpily rolling their dice, I feel like I might have let them down. Wrong-headed? Probably, but it drives me to be a better DM.

 

[Rel]

I've gamed with basically the same guys for upwards of 15 years and I still think buy-in is important. We've done generic fantasy games many, many a time and, while we still get a fresh take on the genre sometimes, we frequently do more niche gaming. My most recent venture was Deadlands.

I asked them, "How do you guys feel about being a roving band of cowboys, ridding the Weird West of undead and bizarre horrors?" They said, "Sounds great!" We don't really need a more formal social contract than that. But we DO need a social contract. Because, if they start saying, "Hey, let's instead buy a ship and start conducting merchant trade between New York and England!" then I get to go back to the buy-in conversation and say, "Hey dudes, remember the part where this campaign is about you guys being a roving band of cowboys ridding the Weird West of undead and bizarre horrors?..."

So I think buy-in is important because it gives some central expectations for the group to use as a touchstone for what the campaign will be about.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I asked them, "How do you guys feel about being a roving band of cowboys, ridding the Weird West of undead and bizarre horrors?" They said, "Sounds great!" We don't really need a more formal social contract than that. But we DO need a social contract. Because, if they start saying, "Hey, let's instead buy a ship and start conducting merchant trade between New York and England!" then I get to go back to the buy-in conversation and say, "Hey dudes, remember the part where this campaign is about you guys being a roving band of cowboys ridding the Weird West of undead and bizarre horrors?..."

I have the buy-in conversation with my players for pretty much exactly this reason. I've been playing primarily with the same group of players since the early 80's but, unlike Rel's group, they have no interest at all in niche gaming. If I were to propose having them be cowboys ridding the Weird West of undead and bizarre horrors, particularly in a non-D&D system, I'd get That Look from most of them that would indicate clearly that they're wondering if I should be locked up for my own good.

My players also have a tendency, which I appreciate, to give themselves a common backstory in chargen. If they all agree in advance that they want to be elves trying to take back elvish territory lost to orcs in a forest (and their allies), or dwarves from the same clan (and their allies) trying to defend their territory against mind flayers, or simply a wandering band of halfling merchants and adventurers (all of which we've done), it's much easier as the GM to develop a setting and create adventures that fit what the players want to do.

 

[Lanefan]

There are a multitude of genres you can play with the D&D ruleset. Maybe you have a traditional fantasy world setting, or an oriental setting or a swashbuckling adventure on the high seas. All can be played with the D&D ruleset, but all have a different feel and may or may not fit in with what the players are expecting. If the players aren't into oriental settings and you have a campaign that is focused in this genre the players are not as apt to enjoy it.

Another factor is the length of campaign you have in mind. If it's a 1-year wonder then you need to nail this stuff down going in, but if you're looking at a sprawling 10-or-more-year endeavour it really doesn't matter very much because you'll have time to touch on all those archetypes and more, should you and-or the players wish to do so.

For example, all three of the examples you give could be done in my current world should the players so choose; along with arabic-desert style adventuring, norse-arctic stuff, underdark crawling, inter-planar travelling, and even space-based adventuring; all to go with the Greek-themed adventuring and CSotIO*-evil-empire-bashing they've done thus far. Which of these they'll actually end up doing is of course still an open question.

And an example of how things can change between design and play: my last big campaign was supposed to be very nautical by design - lots of sea travel to and from the inshore islands, later expanding to the islands farther offshore; lots of pirates and sea monsters to fight, etc. etc.

Five adventures in I had abandoned all hope of this ever becoming reality; despite my best attempts to get 'em to sea it just wasn't going to happen.

* - City State of the Invincible Overlord (well, World Emperor in my case).

And this goes back to player choice. If you start the campaign in an oriental setting but the players aren't grooving on that, what's to stop them (other than you) from getting on a boat and sailing across the sea to Norse lands or whatever other culture you've put there - or just staying at sea and swashing their buckles? This assumes, of course, your world is robust enough to handle something like this; but I maintain it probably should be in any case and you as DM need to be prepared...

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

How much do I need?

None.

A game set up first-come first-seated is just splendid. I would rather jump in and get to playing than write up a list of specs for the ref to get back to me about someday.

 

[Ariosto]

I was DMing for some guys, and asked them what they wanted to see in the campaign. They thought it was pretty weird to lay that on them. "You're the DM. It's your job to make it up!"

I pressed a bit, and got some answers as to what they thought they were not keen on: swords-n-sorcery a la Leiber, Howard, et al (with which they were actually unacquainted); sword-n-planet / "science fantasy"; settings beyond the quasi-northwestern-European and pseudo-Tolkien mold.

Well, that turned out not to be such a firm opinion after all. They can do what they choose, and sometimes they may choose to investigate some of that "exotic" stuff!

 

[Barastrondo]

Fun topic! The thing that keeps me playing D&D is the ability to ramp up thematic takes on it, so naturally buy-in's a question. If I want to play a particular theme, I obviously want players who are enthusiastic about playing, say, a pack of corsairs tearing through an Al-Qadim-style Sinbad-inspired setting.

What I've been doing of late is submitting a number of potential campaign pitches at players, seeing what they bite at, and then running the winner. One group voted for an immense Gormenghast-inspired city with no contact with the Outside, and they've been having a blast discovering all its secrets and interacting with all its bizarre inhabitants. (I should specify that they're natives of said city, so have never seen Outside themselves.) Another group, perhaps prodded by the release of Assassin's Creed 2, voted for something inspired by Renaissance Italy. It's a more complicated process than most, but the enthusiasm for the tropes of whatever theme we pick have been completely rewarding.

When they can't decide for sure, I'd even roll a die. One of the quirkiest and best D&D campaigns I've ever run came about because we got option "2" on a d3.

 

[S'mon]

Musing, I think next time I'm a player and a GM suggests a campaign idea, I might be a bit more proactive in suggesting stuff at the early stages. I've played several campaigns which felt like they could have been so much better with just a *little* tweaking. Thing is, you don't generally know at the start what the problems will be: "Less grinding misery in this Midnight campaign please, and not much PC death, I'd like to develop my character" is difficult when you don't know what the misery & lethality levels will be.

 

[S'mon]

Barastrondo, I'm loving your posts. You're not going to force me to actually start thinking kindly of White Wolf are you?!