Action, Character, Story or World Oriented Campaigns?

[jolt]

I play in a homebrew world that I've spent a lot of time on. So for me, Story and World aren't really seperable. I also work with the players to set up their background so that it makes sense withing the world so that's hard to seperate too. (As an aside, we've been playing in this world for so long that I rarely need to modify a player's background ideas in any way. In fact, I tend to forget that the tweaks and changes to the classes, spells, whatever I've made aren't the default since I've gotten so used to them.)

Our games are heavy on action though too so I decided not to vote. It's hard for me to imagine DM'ing or playing in a world other than the one I designed.

jolt

 

[jolt]

Character. Otherwise what's the point of the players?

They aren't 100% exclusive. You need characters to fight in your Action orientated game. And your need a world and a story for you Character orientated game so that their backstory's have context and meaning.

jolt

 

[Meloncov]

I voted story. My games have plenty of fights, but they all advance the plot in some way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

1. Rules arguments
2. Selling and dividing up loot
3. Trash talk
4. Monty Python quotes

 

[Arkhandus]

I voted for the World element, as that's kinda more the focus of my current Rhunaria campaigns than any of the others. They're free to go wherever they want, roughly (obviously they might not want to go into the orcish lands or the goblinoid lands until they're better prepared to defend themselves, but generally...), and the story goes wherever they do. I just provide the plot hooks, the background, the map, and the NPCs for them to interact with, and the occasional nudge forward when they bicker or get too indecisive.


Personally, I'd like an action-and-story-oriented game to play in. I'd be cool with any of the options in the poll, but a fairly good mix of those two would be me preference. I'm less good at the epic-story-weaving than I'd like to be, in part from a lack of playing in any such campaign before, so I lean towards relatively simple plots and character-driven campaigns when I DM.

 

[takasi]

Another analogy.

Every football team needs great quarterbacks, receivers, linemen, special teams, linebackers, etc to be successful.

Every team only has so much money to pay for them, and sometimes the offense and/or the defense, will, by circumstance, improve or degrade regardless of how much money or effort is spent to change them.

So while, in a perfect world, you would have a team that is perfect at everything, teams are generally judged for their strengths and weaknesses in its elements. Coaches also have a preference for what works best for them, and even fans can have a preference for what improvements they want to see.

Similar to a salary cap, a campaign has a "game cap". There is only so much actual gameplay (and DM development) that can be given to a campaign. Which do you develop most? The action scenes? Work on integrating a character's background? Work on an ongoing metaplot? Prepare more organizations, cities, areas to explore? Do you favor one over the other as a DM? As a player?

Some situations, IMO, are mutually exclusive. For example, let's say you have a player who loves having a "base of operations". He wants a city with reoccuring organization contacts. (This is part of integrating his character development into the game.) There is a 'world' conflict if the DM is spending his time developing the cairns outside of the city, or if the rest of the party want to leave the city. There is a 'story' conflict if DM introduces a metaplot instrument (the ring must be taken to the mountain). There is also an 'action' conflict if the activities in the city are not combat oriented.

All elements must be present, but I also think they conflict with each other on occasion. I also do not believe that any campaign can perfectly balance all four elements. I also think you can develop different styles of campaigns by favoring one area over another, and that different players will react to these styles in different ways.

And I also think that no two people are going to agree on the ideas of a "perfect" amount of action vs a "perfect" amount of character backstory involvement vs a "perfect" presence of ongoing metastory vs a "perfect" number of finely developed areas to explore. What one person thinks is a perfect balance of all four elements, someone else might think the world isn't developed well enough or another might think his backstory is being ignored while another might think there are too many calls for initiative.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

No current campaign to reference. Hopefully this will be remedied in the not too distant future.

My preference would be for Character to be the star player, with World, Story then Action being the focus in that order. Of course being from New England Patriots terrority, I completely support the idea of Team First, and that sometimes you need the top players need to give up some salary in order to make the entire team successful. A great character story with no action isn't much fun. A good character story with the other elements taking a good supporting roles would be my perfect campaign. Of course the makeup of the players needs to match for it to be successful.

 

[Herobizkit]

For me, it's:
1. Character
2. Story
3. Action
4. World

 

[the Jester]

From biggest factor to smallest, my campaign is oriented to:

1. Character
2. World
3. Action
4. Story

The stories in my games are the results of the characters interacting with the world, and their actions in doing so. The four are inextricably linked in my mind.

 

[blargney the second]

Hey, that's what I try for!

If it sounds familiar, that's because I copy you!
-blarg