Action, Character, Story or World Oriented Campaigns?

[RigaMortus2]

I'd say all are important, with Character and Story being tied at first. Action would be second, just because we tend to get more roleplaying done than we do combat. World would be last. I tend to have a general idea for my worlds then just build it (add to it) as we play.

 

[Ry]

My current game is, I suppose, "Situation"-oriented, which doesn't fall into those categories.

Situation is designed 50% by player (Raising the Stakes and character creation) and 50% by the DM (4 elements). Character, World, Story, and Action are the results of this design interacting with the rules in play.

 

[Desdichado]

I'll vote story, but I disagree that it has to be epic. That's just one way of doing it. I've always approached roleplaying games with an "author's eye" if you will. I think of my characters, plots and settings the same way I would if I were writing (or reading) (or watching) a novel, TV show or movie.

That said, I like to watch action movies. Before I saw your definitions, I would have picked action, but I don't like the kind of action you're describing; that seems kinda random, disjointed, and unconnected from any plot, or even from the setting, if you're really serious with the "like Diablo."

Anyway, I guess I'm saying given your descriptions, I'd say story first, and the other three all tied for a relatively close second, but that at the same time I quibble with your defintions; I wouldn't use them.

 

[shilsen]

If I had to choose between them (which I don't in my games), I'd rank character first, since my games tend to be very heavily character-driven, and the story is essentially that of the characters and the choices they make. So I'd rank them as follows, from most important downwards:

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

 

[Stormborn]

In the current game its:

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

And almost universally its true that either Character or Story are first in our games, but we have a small group (so small players have to play more than 1 PC each to make up a party).

What I find intersesting in this thread are those who complain about developing backstory for a character or contributing to the design of the world, as if that is somehow not "playing the game." In my group that IS playing the game and what happens when dice are rolled is just an extension of it. My point is simply that many people invest alot more into playing RPGs than simply what the rules cover for running encounters and creating a set of number we call PCs. It is just as much "playing the game" as rolling dice and fighting monsters.

EDIT: Let me add that the way to have character driven play and not run into a multitude of cross purposes is to have the GM be involved in developing character ideas and having the players be open to suggestions. Running Character driven games will be hard if you simply say "Here is the Campaign Setting, make a 3rd level character that wants to join an adventuring party." If, OTOH, you as GM discuss with each player their PC and how it may or may not fit into the upcoming campaign (via email, message boards, in person, etc) you are more likely to get PCs that can experiance character development together, or at least with a minimal amount of time spent focusing on one PC to the exclusion of the others. For example if the ninja's master was killed by a man in the organization that the Paladin has sworn to destroy which is also the responcible for the desecration of the druid's grove where the duskblade had been left as a child to be taken in by the elves then you can develop all of their characters with a single Story focusing on the rise of an evil cult, in which various NPCs within the cult or related to it all impact the PCs to a greater or lesser degree. Occasionally you will still focus more on a specific PC, but it is integrated into a large frame work where all of them have an interest in what happens.

 

[maddman75]

Character. World, Action, and Story are just means to the end of allowing the player to explore and grow the character. I disagree that this involves heavily involving backstory, all you need is a couple of hooks to get you started and then just run with ongoing plot developments.

 

[Jhaelen]

The order for my current campaign:
1. World (it's all about exploration & slowly unveiling the metaplot)
2. Action (almost entirely set in wilderness areas, rarely dungeon-based)
3. Story (many minor stories with local importance, sometimes related to the metaplot)
4. Character (well, almost all characters share a common background, so not much here)

Actually, I think the Lord of the Rings is not a good example for a story-based campaign. IMHO, the story is just an excuse for portraying the world, inhabitants and history of the place (similar to the way I use my metaplot: the story is advancing while the characters explore everything until they get the full picture and are ready for the campaign's conclusion).

 

[TerraDave]

As a world builder

I would say

1 Action
2 Charecter
3 Story
4 World

The world is critical as the background for the first three. But it really is just the background.

The action is why we are all sitting around this table rolling dice. Best way to get charecter and story? Write a story, with good charecters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For mine:
1. Story
2. Action
3. World
4. Character

I always plan out epic stories with earth-shattering implications and strong philosophical points that play out over months of gaming. Each actual session will be a bunch of plot with a couple of centerpiece battles, usually very tough ones that emphasize the PCs powers (or flaws). World development is important in the long run, but I leave it on the backburner, pulling stuff from my homebrew CS documents only when I need plot ideas. Character development has never been my groups focus-although my current campaign is emphasizing a bit more. The players would rather get to the action then talk about their character's thoughts.

As a PC, I always end up doing more background and psychology than necessary for play. The important thing is the game as a whole, not one individual. At least, that's my feeling.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I have to say:

1.) World - Without a internally consistant setting (even if it is initially a town and its environs), there is no campaign. The more vividly realized the better.

2.) Character - Vital to have interesting characters with somewhat developed personalities, interests, values, etc. that can be integrated into the...

3.) Story - This is a 50% creation of myself, the DM and 50% my players whose choices, actions and inactions who move the story forward and create new stories and plot hooks all the time.

4.) Action - Good battles with enemies that get the bllod flowing and make the PCs and their players fear their enemies and give them the opportunity for heroics and both memorable successes and tragic failures. This action is NOTHING like Diablo. In other words endless pointless combats through endless pointless dungeons swarming with a seemingly endless supply of monsters who hang around waiting to be slaughtered and robbed.



Sundragon