"Campaign..meh, but I like my character"

[Kae'Yoss]

Good points.

So how does a GM get the players invested into the campaign, so they see beyond thier character and become a part of the world?

Encourage weaving the character into the world. Make sure they know enough about the world to give a detailed background (where they come from, what they did there, what most people do there, and so on) and encourage them to give a detailed background. Work that background - and the character itself - into the Campaign. What's better: "Some guy from the government sends you to a quest" or "XYZ, your old childhood friend, who now works for the government, contacts you. He heard of your and your party's exploits and thinks you're the right guys to handle this quest".

Let the players' actions count. Let them change the world around them if they choose to do so.

Don't railroad.

Let them participate, become someone. And not just "one of the most significant brutest ever to swing the maul", but an influental and popular person.

Give them the chance to become part of something greater.

Establish reoccuring NPCs they'll come to like (or hate - and love to hate).

Put some sense into the challenges you put before them ("why did we face a frost giant IN THE DESERT?" "Its CR was right for what I had in mind...")

If the game sucks, there's no reason to stick around...

I also left games/gaming groups in the past. There's a certain amount of "campaign suckage" you can endure if other things are nice (good players sitting at the table, nice character to play, and so on), but there's a limit, and with some things the limit is quite low.

Some examples from my gaming career:

One game I stuck till the end (which was before its conclusion). The DM wasn't very good, did some serious railroading, didn't take off the velvet gloves, made some very questionable choices and the story was weird. But other than that, it was cool: The characters were great, the entertainment the characters made for themselves was, well, entertaining, and the players (and the DM himself) were decent fellows. Great fun at the table (and some of those players are now part of my gaming circle).

The ones I quit were almost invariably over irregular sessions: A lot of sessions were cancelled - in some cases much more than were actually played - and they only gave a couple of hours' notice (if at all). Sometimes it was just that too many players were too inconsiderate of other people's time, but in the last case the two DMs (one group, two games, with different DMs who played in each others' campaign) were to blame: Lately, more and more games would be cancelled because of one or the other guy, sometimes they gave notice the day before, sometimes it was an hour before play time. The reasons often sounded not very convincing. Since this development coincided with the two of them becoming involved with World of Warcraft, I think they neglected D&D because of that.

Before I quit, there were other problems - those two were weird in some ways (and not the pleasant kind of weird), and I didn't enjoy the games as I used to, anyway, but the last reason for me to quit was yet another session cancelled in the last minute. I haven't looked back since.

 

[bento]

Good points.

So how does a GM get the players invested into the campaign, so they see beyond thier character and become a part of the world?

(I'm asking these questions just for discussion's sake, not as a question for my own campaign)

The first thing you can do is look at your player's character sheet. Where have they invested in skills or feats? That will outline the kinds of adventures they are looking for.

Next ask your players to reflect on their characters and answer questions like:
* What's your character's motto for life?
* What does your character want to achieve?
* Tell me about the most important person(s) in their life?
* Tell me about the most important event in their life so far?
* Why does your character become an adventurer?

Esssentially your fishing for motivations and plot hooks. You then use those motivations and plot hooks to seed your adventures. Don't think about the big campaign except in regards to occasional big events, but focus at the weekly or daily events level where you can have the greatest impact. You'll get better buy-in from the players when they start seeing some of those opportunities come along and they should start driving the story more.

Also use character actions and decisions to drive the future events. In another thread (why not more +13 level games I think) someone said that the game takes care of itself when the GM uses character decisions to drive the campaign. For instance (and I know I'm quoting someone else on this) - the party kills a bandit chief while trying to protect a caravan. In game results can come from this. Those that benefit from his death may reward me, and potentially need my help in the future. Those that suffer from his death will be mad and will some day come back to seek revenge. As a player, when my decisions come back to reward me or haunt me, I'm now more invested in the adventure.

What you can do with campaign building is have player actions drive even bigger events. The players take a job where they release an evil wizard that then wreaks havok on the countryside. Or they make a very public refuse to join the barons army, which then loses an important battle, which then fails to stop the horde of goblins that sack their hometown. Ouch! For good decision making, you (GM) reward your players some of the things that their characters want to achieve.

Henry's already cited what I consider a great source of GM Philosophy - Robin Laws work. Everytime I get stumped or want to raise my game to the next level I almost always go back to chapter 1 of the DMG2 and read what it says.

 

[Umbran]

So how does a GM get the players invested into the campaign, so they see beyond thier character and become a part of the world?

Make sure the character has links to the world. If the player has no reason to care about what happens in the world, they won't buy into it.

Many players go for the "lone wolf, parents died while they were young, no ties to anyone or anything" type, and that can make it very difficult to buy in - without links to the world that matter to them, the world can change due to their efforts, but they would have a hard time seeing it.

Make generating a history, and connections to NPCs a required part of character generation. For some characters, it may be enough for these connections to be emotional (family, friends, love interests, loyalties, and so on). If the player is not motivated by such, though, make them have an impact on the plot - if, for example, the town they come from says the debts or crimes of the father fall upon the children, then what happens or happened to dear old Dad may matter when the city guard comes a knockin'. Business or legal relationships are also good for this sort of thing.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get even a little info about the players character. In my current campaign, since we started above first level, I asked my players for a 3x3x3 (yoinked from the Serenity RPG). I got a couple of good things out of them, but some of them were very light - if not worse (one included another PC, which misses the point completely, and the Gold Dragons parents were apparently killed by Redspawn Firebelchers).

As a player, I'm not always good with my background. I actually prefer to write up a background after playing for a little while, so I'm not changing horses in midstream if the game isn't what I envisioned.

I also left games/gaming groups in the past. There's a certain amount of "campaign suckage" you can endure if other things are nice (good players sitting at the table, nice character to play, and so on), but there's a limit, and with some things the limit is quite low.

Hmm, this thread encouraged me to look back upon one of the characters that I had high hopes for...

http://bb.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=8&thread=170

Looking back, I feel odd. I loved playing Aravik, but that thread shows that the problems existed from the the beginning of the game. Yet, I apparently was satisfied (or put up with) enough to play for over a year and a half (every other week).

While I worked with another player to have our background join together, the other players specifically tried to hide their backgrounds from us (a fact that I forgot). Additionally, NOTHING in that background was ever used (come on, it not only has a evil bad guy in it, it has a good 'bad guy' in it), despite the DM demanding a background from the players.

 

[atomn]

So how does a GM get the players invested into the campaign, so they see beyond thier character and become a part of the world?

If they've made up a good backstory, work that into the plotline. Or if they have some sort of goals work that in too. The player with a backstory that their father left for the great war and was killed in combat will be much more invested if the GM has them catch glimpses of an old, scarred man who looks just like their father instead of having them on a quest to stop the evil cultists from raising their dead god.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have been in this situation where I really love my character but the campaign sucks.

One of the way this happens is a DM who does not care about the PCs motivations or backgrounds. All he cares about is telling his story.

You know that you are following a script and that you really have no choice where you go next.

The best games I have played in are where the DM helps you have a stake in the world. You care about the NPCs or you hate with a passion some of the NPCs.

The best game I ever played in had so much in it. I loved my character I loved the NPCs even the ones my character hated. I could not wait to play to see what was going to happen next.

There was a session where one of the PCs died the player and I had worked out ahead of time our backgrounds and we were playing twin sisters. I actually ended up with a few tears over the death because we had all gotten so involved in the characters and the world.

I would email the FM after the sessions asking questions so I could write a game journal and from these questions and questions from other players he often got ideas of where to go next.

It was a shared world in the true sense in that we all built it.

If you really want your players to invest in your campaign then make sure they have a chance to leave some kind of imprint on it.

 

[pawsplay]

"Campaign..meh, but I like my character"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've noticed when folks are talking about a game they are not that invested in, they will inevitably say, but I like my character.

The purpose of this thread is to try to figure out why we (the players) don't put the same effort into buying into the campaign as we do into the character. IMO, one without the other is sorta pointless.

Have you noticed this in your own groups?

I would not be surprised to find their is a relation. I think often the "meh" feeling is the result of the campaign not lovingly showing off the awesomeness of their very special character.

 

[scholar]

something that hasn't been mentioned is that there's more to a campaign than a player and a dm, there's also the other players...

one of my current campaigns that I'm in, dm is really good, I'm invested in my character and the storyline(savage tide), but I don't really care all that much for the campaign because I'm getting irritated with some of the other members of the group, and that leads to a sense of disappointment in the campaign, simply because of dealing with some of the other players

now I realize that probably most of htis is my own issue, since I've been grumpy and dissatisfied with a lot of stuff going on both in and out of game, and my beard has been growing, but it is still a point that hasn't been raised

j

 

[Henry]

Many players go for the "lone wolf, parents died while they were young, no ties to anyone or anything" type, and that can make it very difficult to buy in - without links to the world that matter to them, the world can change due to their efforts, but they would have a hard time seeing it.

It's probably very evil of me, but when players tend to do the above, I usually force links to the campaign on them -- a half-brother they never knew they had, somebody from their orphanage, an uncle who is secretly a Demon worshipper, etc. Unless they're opting for the "tragic loner searching for a place to call home" card, I don't let 'em get away with being a randomly-inserted cardboard hero.

 

[atomn]

It's probably very evil of me, but when players tend to do the above, I usually force links to the campaign on them -- a half-brother they never knew they had, somebody from their orphanage, an uncle who is secretly a Demon worshipper, etc. Unless they're opting for the "tragic loner searching for a place to call home" card, I don't let 'em get away with being a randomly-inserted cardboard hero.

I really like that sort of idea for any character. To me it gives a sort of natural feel to the character, in the sense that they're not as completely planned out as you say in your character backstory. As long as the GM isn't directing the character into a direction that ruins the PC for the player, that idea's gold!