Big picture or minor detail?

[Yort]

Since I’m looking to kick off a new campaign with a new group, I’ve come up with a number of general questions concerning how others run their campaigns. I’m not looking for help building my campaign, I’m just curious as to how individual GMs mete out their campaigns in the long run. For my first of many long-winded, ultimately pointless questions I ask: do you plan out every step of the campaign, from that first meeting in the tavern to the final blow against the uber-god of evil? Do you have a starting point and a finish and let the characters muddle about in the middle? I even played with a GM who ran a series of unconnected modules, changed a few names and locations, and ratchet up the module level as we grew. Very disjointed, but good individual gaming sessions.

Essentially, how much do you plan out in the big picture? Character interaction will no doubt change the course of events, but is there a goal they’re working towards and will reach, in whatever fashion they take, whether they know it or not?

 

[Wombat]

I never plan out every detail because the game will, necessarily, change due to actions of the players.

My players have the annoying habit of refusing to act like characters in novels who will go more or less where the author desires; instead they insist on acting like free-willed individuals, who are distracted by Shiny Things, and all the rest

On a more serious note, I paint the broad outlines of a campaign, in that I do a lot of work developing the setting and the context for adventures, have the first 3-4 episodes mapped out (though only the first one is 100% if shape) by the time the players are ready to create characters, and often have 1-2 major baddies for them to confront along the way. What I find, however, is that since the players collectively find some things much more interesting than others and I refuse to force them along a narrow gaming path, new baddies appear that are more "party appropriate" and types of adventures get tweaked to fit the groups expectations and desires.

So, yeah, I am a "broad brush" guy as far as the campaign is concerned; conversely, I work long and hard to make the world feel "lived in", so that the players have a real sense of place. I have players fill out background sheets on their characters, everyone knows roughly where they fit in society (as opposed to the adventuring party), they know about foods, clothing styles, names of important nations and towns, some myths and legends, and sometimes even develop a "background music" mix for the game.

Can you tell I have been gaming too long...

 

[the Jester]

I usually start with virtually no idea of where the campaign is going to end up. I let pc decisions (i.e. which plot hooks they bite at) determine who the big bad guys will end up being. The world is vast; once pcs can teleport they can pick their fights well enough.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Me, I get a hazy notion of the big picture to the extent that it will affect the characters over the next five levels, and that's it. If the main villain is a half-fiend, half-dragon ogre mage lich with CR 20, I don't need to stat him out or even do anything more than note his existence unless his agents will start messing with my players before they hit level 5. And even if they will, I only go so far as to note their general motivations.

Instead, I turn my energy on those first few levels, especially the first two. Where are they starting? What NPCs will they need for various things? What will be their probable base of operations? How will they fit into the region? How do the characters know each other? I find making sure the starting game details are hammered out provides much larger rewards -- for one thing, it's work that's useful immediately, and for another, it's work that I know WILL be used; that CR 20 lich might never get used if the campaign doesn't make it that far.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I come up with a vague idea of how I want my campaign to begin, an (hopefully) exciting midpoint/discovery, and a fairly fleshed out endpoint. I am one of those DMs that lets his players do whatever they want most of the time, so planning beyond that is futile IMC. I like to make sketches of maps/locations, a rough outline and then on a game by game basis a flowchart that maps out how things are going and what direction they are taking. With my group, I find myself winging it a good 30 percent of the time. These guys are inventive and free spirited, which is why I love my group in the first place.

 

[ender_wiggin]

In the past, I've found it somewhat boring to leave the story completely open-ended (i.e. letting the PCs actions dictate where the plot goes). The reason is because I usually end up using Shrodinger's Cat, where it doesn't matter what the PCs do - the world is always tailored around them and they never encounter and sort of "real" long-term danger.

Having a definate BBEG, for example, from the get-go definately solves this problem: it makes the PCs' actions matter, and thus a lot more exciting for the DM.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I come up with the basic premise. The central conflict of the campaign. I develop various villains associated with the main threat. I make sure I know what they want, and why.

When the campaign starts, I start by running individual adventures. The players need some time to get used to their characters and the world. Gradually, they get bits and pieces of the central conflict. Then perhaps they come in contact with one of the minions, etc. Until they are eventually fully a part of the campaign's central conflict.

I don't play what the PCs will do in advance, because they never follow my plan. Besides, I like to change many of the details, depending on what the PCs do, or who the PCs are, to make things more interesting.

 

[taliesin15]

[some great avatars on this thread, esp Breakdaddy!]

obviously it depends somewhat on yr players, I like the meet in the tavern paradigm myself, but a recent thread on that raised some really interesting alternatives--people putting up notices that the PCs answer (that's kind of the carrot approach)--then there's the approach of some imminent evil coming and they must react (the stick)

but the optimum thing for players seeking a variety of options is to place them in an immediate milieu along those lines, I think: one paradigm underutilized is the notion of a great regional market in the local town--something like that I'm thinking of working on is more of a carnival/market taking place in the countryside when the barbarian tribes from the North come riding down south following the caribou herds--almost like a Ren Fair, with athletic contests and such--it might be a very stimulating place to start a campaign, albeit a lot of work

 

[barsoomcore]

Here's what I do at the start of every campaign: I take a sheet of paper (or open a new text document) and put at the top of it

Things I Think Are Cool

And then I put down every single thing I can think of remotely related to the campaign idea (be it pirates, or dinosaurs, or whatever) that I think is cool. I don't try to rationalize anything or connect anything; I just make a great big list of things I think are cool.

And I keep that document for the rest of the campaign and whenever I'm stuck for ideas I go back through it, looking at all the cool stuff I haven't gotten to yet, and before I know I'm scribbling madly, cackling with fiendish glee.

I can't imagine a DM planning an entire story out and then having the campaign fit that. I mean, why not just write a book if that's what you want? Where's the fun in having your friends act out exactly what you want them to do?

Instead I come up with a wide passel of bad guys, who usually at the start of the campaign have rather poorly-defined goals (my notes include comments like, "We're not sure what this evil sorcerer is up to, but it's obviously no good") and only through the play of the game become identified with certain strategies and schemes.

Rather than create a story, then, I create a world full of characters who act on their own intiative, pursuing their own goals, and I try to make sure that those goals intersect the PCs on some more or less interesting level. Thus, regardless of what the PCs do, they will find themselves caught up in the great events of their time, no doubt saving the world from terrible evil at great cost to themselves.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I wing it to the extreme. Before the beginning of a campaign/game/etc, I figure out the overall general idea...then, let things happen from session to session. Between games, I simply think of what would be interesting to connect with this and advance the overall idea I started with.

Eventually, I'll get a BBEG type in it(if the first idea didn't start with that), and things just go from there. For me, its more fun that way...sure, its nice to plan all of it ahead, but sometimes its nice to be as surprised by the next thing as the players are.