WhT makes a good campaign?

[Greenfield]

My group has just closed out or D&D 3.5 campaign. We were just reaching 12th level of a planned 20 level campaign, and we just plain lost interest.

We weren't engaged by the story line, and were more or less grinding levels, or as one player put it "Going through the motions".

Our previous D&D campaign had been a rollicking good time from start to finish, and several people were sad to see it end.

I'm about to start a new campaign, also D&D 3.5. The question, however, is more generic, hence the system non-specific header for the thread.

In the Curse of Darkness campaign (Rome world, successful), we began with a gathering of the PCs at an ancient Olympic games. They met and dealt with a street thief who was happy to take their money in exchange for dubious information. He sold them rumors and fact with equal abandon, and eventually evolved into a recurring villain. They liked him and eventually hated him.

They got involved in events, making connections to several contenders to the Imperial throne in Rome. Some of them wished the party were dead, others found them usable tools/allies.

They earned recognition: One of them actually won the Gold in Archery (incredible string of hot dice rolls.)

At the end of the adventure they had to more or less recreate the run from Marathon to Athens, racing to delivery military orders to an army that hadn't been allowed near the games. Those orders got the army in motion to save the city from a barbarian horde.

The Black Plague campaign (most recent, same world 50 years later, abandoned) started with a commission to check out a "haunted" house. Smugglers, criminals, and tracing the recurring black plague to a Dragon (way out of our weight class) that was arranging for were-rats to import infected normal rats to various cities.

Both campaigns built on their foundations.

What I see as the foundational differences should be clear. An enemy they can track down and deal with v one that is beyond reach. Recognition v "Thanks for killing rats.". Links to long term plot drivers v , well, nothing beyond "Better leave town, the mayor is mad at you."

In the Rome campaign the "Olympic Champion" thing opened doors for the party for years. Good plot hook.

We had nothing to compare with that, except maybe a sour reputation of one PC as having been drummed/flogged out of the military for refusing an (evil) order.

Obviously I'm seeing some elements I'd like to recreate and a few I'd like to avoid at the start of the new campaign.

Any comments? Things I'm missing, overrating, under rating, or just plain wrong about?

As a caveat: We rotate the DM duties, so "Higher Quality DMing" isn't something I can control. I sort of set the tone with the opening adventure, then its in the hands of others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the Curse of Darkness campaign (Rome world, successful)

What level did this one reach? Was it also planned to go to 20?


It may just be that 3.5 is starting to pall. It's a very versatile system with a lot of player choice, but it could still happen.


It also looks like key differences in the two campaigns were more or less random, and just happened to catch the player's interest. The minor street character growing into a recurring villain, winning an archery contest with a series of hot rolls.

 

[Greenfield]

The Curse of Darkness campaign ran to 20.

As for the "Minor Street character": When I run the opening session of a campaign I have several characters prepared. You see, when I finish and someone else takes the helm, I'm a player, like anyone else.

The street thief was planned as one of the possible PCs for me to run. There was also a Ranger and a Bard. The group decided that they liked the Bard. As I saw that happening I morphed the Rogue into someone better connected, better able to manipulate events. He manipulated the party with the information they bought from him. This is why they liked him and eventually hated him.

Yes, the archery prize was an unexpected bonus hook. The question would be, could I, as DM, manipulate the situation so as to award some "hero" in the party a rank or award that would serve the same role, as a door opener?

And yes, the evolution of the Rogue was similar: Evolutionary rather than planned. Still, can I plan such a protagonist? My current plans include five potential PCs, three of whom are in key positions to help/manipulate the party.

My question is, am I over thinking this? Are there other elements I'm over looking?

My thinking, boiled down to its essence, is that I need to play some key characters in full color, full personalities with comprehensible goals and plans. Engaging on the personal level with the players draws them into the game world.

At least, that's one theory.

In simpler terms, I think it helps to give some minion or preliminary adversary a face and a name, make them someone the party can deal with and ultimately (eventually) catch and defeat. Put the goal line, or at least a mile marker, in sight early on.

But I'm sure there's more than that.

I'm asking for the "more than that" part, as well as inviting people to shoot holes in this. Letting some of the hot air out of me, periodically, is a good thing.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Player and DM engagement is important, definitely, but to get that? I think It’s a mixture of vivid details, exciting locales, surprising events. It’s about having characters that are interesting, PC choices that matter, that affect the direction of the campaign. It’s about knowing what makes you happy as a DM, and what makes your players happy.

It’s also about knowing when to end the campaign, and how to do it. Even the best campaign can become dull if it goes on longer than it should. A good story has to have a good ending.

 

[innerdude]

First off, 100% agree with everything Ralif Redhammer said.

Second, I've discovered that pacing is a huge element for keeping players engaged --- Are the players getting answers to questions fast enough? Are things happening fast enough? I've found that when gameplay slows down unnecessarily, it's often because as GM I'm trying to keep something from the players to "build tension" or "drama." And sometimes instead of holding back, I need to give out MORE. Say "yes" more often and see where it goes.

Third, players disengaging from the game means they don't care about what's happening. They're not invested. In my experience getting players re-invested typically means increasing the number of meaningful choices they have available. The most frustrated times I can remember as a player have been when I've felt like I've had no viable options to accomplishing my character's goals.

Fourth, are the characters connected to other people in the game world? Even if they belong to a clan, or tribe, or guild, or whatever, do they have a connection to a person or persons within the broader organization? Working for the Guild of Thieves because it's a way to get phat lewt is one thing. Working for the Guild of Thieves because a trusted NPC's reputation and future are at stake if they don't succeed is another.

Fifth, even though the PCs are the "protagonists" of the game, are the NPCs pushing just as hard to accomplish their agendas? If the players aren't running up against constant obstacles from the people who oppose them, the opposing NPCs aren't trying hard enough.

Sixth, are the stakes high enough? And not in the sense of, "If you don't succeed, the world ends" type of thing. There needs to be enough at stake during each incremental step. At a writing conference a couple of years ago, I heard Brandon Sanderson say that characters need to have goals within goals for accomplishing their "end game." In Mistborn, for example, he said that in order for Kelsey's group to pull off their final battle, there were dozens of sub-goals that had to be met first, and that those sub-goals pushed the story forward.

This sometimes goes back to the pacing question. If the players aren't seeing enough of what's at stake, give out more information until they do. Also, this may or may not be applicable, but one of the things that led me to abandon D&D as my system of choice was that it inevitably seems to lead to conflicts at the "cosmic" level. Because really, that's what a level 20 PC should be facing. I've never really cared for conflict at the "cosmic" scale, traveling the planes, facing demons and demi-gods, etc. I've found that my players tended to stay more engaged when the conflicts stayed at a more "human" level. And past level 8 or 9, D&D's arenas of conflict start moving past that.

In any case, unless you're purposefully engaging them with a "puff" encounter, players should feel the weight of potential failure during every significant scene.

 

[YOGZULA]

I often find that a most important element of a good campaign is the impact of choice. Choice is something that tabletop RPGs can offer far more than any video game, so emphasize it. Make it matter. The DM should find a clever way to make every single little thing the PCs do come back around in some form. When a campaign comes full circle because the worthless no-name NPC turns Revenant after you accidentally burned down his house (and him in it) during a street brawl, chases you to the ends of the earth for revenge, and ends up as the BBEG, that's when DnD feels like a magical experience.

 

[delericho]

Any comments? Things I'm missing, overrating, under rating, or just plain wrong about?

Partly, it's planning - I've found that if I don't plan a campaign properly then it's pretty much doomed. But good planning by itself isn't enough, because...

Partly, it's just due to getting a good group together - 90% of the enjoyment of any game comes from the other people at the table, so if you don't get the right people (or you do, but they're off their game for whatever reason) you're doomed to failure. But getting the right people by itself isn't enough, because...

Partly, it's just magic. Sometimes, things just click, and you have a great campaign. Other times, things don't quite come together - in which case, if you've done the homework and you've got the right people, and so on, you may have to settle for a campaign that's 'only' very good - the horrors. (But compare, for example, the "Lord of the Rings" movies vs "The Hobbit". Same director, same composer, same style of design, same level of attention to detail, a cast that is just as good, source material from the same author... and yet the former trilogy scales heights the latter simply can't manage.)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, there’s something not quantifiable in a good campaign, too. Sometimes you do all the right things and the magic isn’t there. Sometimes you’re stuck with a system you don’t like, characters you don’t like, but somehow it becomes one of the most memorable campaigns.

Partly, it's just magic. Sometimes, things just click, and you have a great campaign. Other times, things don't quite come together - in which case, if you've done the homework and you've got the right people, and so on, you may have to settle for a campaign that's 'only' very good - the horrors.

 

[Nagol]

Player and DM engagement is important, definitely, but to get that? I think It’s a mixture of vivid details, exciting locales, surprising events. It’s about having characters that are interesting, PC choices that matter, that affect the direction of the campaign. It’s about knowing what makes you happy as a DM, and what makes your players happy.

<snip>

And just the right sprinkling of pixie dust. The dynamic of getting player attention and interest in early campaign elements is still pretty much a dark art. I find I keep casting one out after another until something snags a player.

Your last campaign had an ugly player conflict though didn't it [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]? That can suck the life out of a campaign pretty quickly.

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah. "Problem Child" treated it as a race for personal survival. In one encounter, when a very angry queen wanted to know who had magically interfered in a ritual combat, Problem Child's character, who understood her language, prompted another character to stand up, thus taking the blame. The other character died as a result.

His rationale? "His character had more hit points than mine. He had a better chance to survive."

Towards the end of his tenure in the game it got very ugly. He'd stacked the party hip deep in loot, during an abortively short run as DM, so his own character could power up on gear. His powered up character then died and he went semi ballistic when he learned that we were actually going to enforce the rules on new characters. He'd wanted to give his new character all the wealth and gear of the old one, rather than base it off the Character Wealth Per Level table in the book.

That and the fact that he couldn't make a legal character in five tries. Kept assigning more ability points, skill points, feats and languages than he had, and kept trying to include magic items from disallowed books. (Many of which his character couldn't have used anyway.)

But while his antics made the table contentious, we'd survived him in the prior, highly successful campaign. Some people took a dark delight in shooting down his "perfect" character (in one case the "Shoot down" was literal and epic.)

He went semi-ballistic in that campaign when he found out that his stealth-monster could be neutralized with a Glitterdust spell. "You mean a first level spell shuts me down??!?!?!?"

"Not at all. Glitterdust is 2nd level."

We had another "problem player" in that game as well. He wanted to play a "Golden One", a Cleric type from a 3rd party source that was supposed to have a Paladin-like code of honor and conduct. He kept doing things like, "I'll go take a walk while you guys torture the prisoner." Then he couldn't understand why the DM had a problem with that. He left early in the failed campaign when somebody else was running the Paladin, and refused to look the other way while his character did the dirty deeds. Really didn't get what Lawful Good was supposed to mean.

Neither of these killed the campaign. They detracted somewhat from the DM's ability to give his full attention to the story, which probably contributed to the decay, but that wasn't the source of the decay.

I think the key is personal engagement, challenging situations with appropriate rewards, and when applicable some good words and the occasional bonus for players who add to the story.