Group Campaign Creation - How does this make you feel as a player?

[Lanefan]

It all depends what you and the other players want from the game, too.

In your opening post, the game you describe as a disaster sounds like just the sort of game in which I'm in my element! Were I in your build-it-all-together group, when asked what I'd like to see I'd certainly include in-party conflict (up to and including death), spying, alternate agendas, and secrets...along with adventures, quests, heroic glory, etc. And while I know this slows the story down, that's fine with me; I expect the campaign to last until it's done, however many years that may take...

As for doing backgrounds ahead of time; while this can be fun for some it isn't always for me...all I want to know for any character I run is what its past profession is, where its home is, and whether it has any family; and after that its adventuring career *becomes* its background.

Lanefan

 

[theskyfullofdust]

This is pretty much how I always build a campaign, aside from the setting creation. In the past we've always just picked an established setting (usually Greyhawk, as we all know it) but for my 4th Ed one I'm building a world myself. Mainly for the fun of it.

Started an 'evil' campaign after discussing it with my players, wherein they are part of a 'department of acquisition' hunting down artefacts, relics, powerful magic items, for their leaders. The players discussed roles with one another so that they fitted as a team.

For our new campaign I've asked them for suggestions of what sort of game they want to play, characters, roles and so on.

In the past I've tended to play a mix of adventures, so with hooks, others force-fed, but most linked to the characters in some way, or working with them on their goals (for example, one character really wanted a Staff of the Magi, so I built an adventure around finding one and then taking it from the dragon who hoarded it).

I love to get players more involved in the campaign planning. I always hate it when PCs are backstabbing each other, not working as a team. Can really kill a game, and makes it sod all fun for everyone else.

Hope it all works out for you.

 

[Fenes]

Creating characters as a group (and making sure that there are no conflicts brewing unless everyone wants them) and deciding the campaign theme and tone first works best, IME. Especially a "no gnomes" list.

 

[buzz]

Great list, Rechan. This is roughly how any campaign should begin (and how almost all indie-hippie games seem to work).

Logos7 does make a valid point, though. Players who prioritize immersion often don't want to be involved in setting creation, or at least want to minimize the "meta," as it were. Some people want to create, and some want to partake; you need to be aware of these preferences among your group.

That said, just because you're not creating setting as a group doesn't mean that you shouldn't talk about what everybody wants first. As Lanefan mentioned, all that PvP, backstabbing play can be really fun if that's what everyone wants/expects. I also think it's really important to get the group working together on characters regardless of whether immersion is a focus or not. My experience has been that not doing these collaborative steps always leads to disaster (or at least dissatisfaction).

Honestly, it bums me out that so many of the popular RPGs still haven't glommed on to this concept. "Talk about things so that you're all on the same page" is the real Rule 0, IMO. (Or maybe Rule 0b, right after "Don't be a dick.")

 

[Woas]

I've had the same problems and over the past 3 or 4 months have recently come to the same conclusions as you Rechan. The games I have run over the past 6-7 years as I sat down and thought about them several weeks ago all fell apart because the players just did not know what their characters were doing. What the big picture was.
As I thought about it I realized the best times gaming we had was when the players (and their associated characters) had a clear, concise goal. Certain side-adventure or small story arcs always were the most satisfying and memorable but the overall games those were part of ended up being duds.

The problem I believe is that the games were "traditional" in the sense that, as the DM I would come up with some masterful end game scenario.... Kill Orcus! Save the World! Gather the McGuffins! and hope the game, like an origami plot, would unfold perfectly to the characters and players and through dropped hits and their own intuition understand it all. But it never worked like that. The players did the best thing players do, go in the complete opposed direct that you need them to. And soon enough I was being asked, "Why are we even here again? Why are we on this quest?" because the players just saw it as the next adventure. The didn't know what the big picture was anymore and to be honest after a couple side treks even I wasn't sure how to work my masterful end-game back together. Soon enough I found myself building up a lot of "story debt", to take a tern from our own Eric Noah. As the characters kept going down the next rabbit hole, the story soon spiraled out of my control and basically broke down in a series of vaguely connected adventures with no end, as the original end did not apply to the new circumstances and trying to re-introduce it just confused the players.

So what I think you have there in your OP is a great list. IMHO, the only thing I would add/change is a Rule 2b: Decide on the End/Goal. I can see where some people might not like this idea, but hear me out.
This does not mean everyone has to agree that the party, at exactly Level 18 will fight Orcus is room 16 of the Temple of Unspeakable Terror. But actually sort of ties in to Step 1. I think it is important for everyone at the table to understand what the purpose, or scenario for this particular game. Maybe the imaginary people that exist on the paper, the characters, don't need to understand it fully, but the In Real Life people, the players, need to realize that in this particular game we're going to... unite a divided kingdom, stop a demon from entering the world, protect this caravan across the dangerous countryside, whatever.

 

[Rechan]

In your opening post, the game you describe as a disaster sounds like just the sort of game in which I'm in my element! Were I in your build-it-all-together group, when asked what I'd like to see I'd certainly include in-party conflict (up to and including death), spying, alternate agendas, and secrets...along with adventures, quests, heroic glory, etc.

That's fine IF THE GROUP AGREES TO THAT ahead of time and everyone is on the same page. I mean, that's part of what V:TM is about, no?

But this was mainly player versus player, vindictive, bad behavior, etc. It was fracturing the group because everyone involved wanted Different directions for the game, and hadn't discussed it. It was just "This is what my character would do - the rest of you be damned" for the sake of it.

Imagine if, in LotR, the fellowship fractured and no one would talk to eachother because Gimli wanted to take the Ring and hide it in an impenetrable vault, Legolas wanted to take the ring to the Bahamas, and Sam wanted to eat it and leap into the Balrog's belly. They refused to make any headway, so Frodo had to do it on his own, and gets killed on the way. Interesting, but not when you look at the over-arching story.

Initially I thought Logos7 was a beer and pretzel variety of gamer "Just let me show up and play my dude." But then, thanks to Buzz pointing out he's a method actor, I get it. That's a fair criticism. The thing is that 1) You don't have to if you don't want to. But, 2) You don't have to be very committed to the setting creation. Just point at random spots and make declarations (There's a haunted forest here, there's a mad alchemist in the city sewers, etc) and then leave it at that. You don't have to BUILD it, just declare it. Part of that declaration, then, is something your PC knows. It helps with emersion because you are creating the legends your PC now knows.

Woas, I see what you mean. It designates a point where everyone knows "This is where we STOP." On the one hand, I like to run games as long as I can, because they usually fall apart. However, games can also petter out because they've just gone on too long, or it's just moving on its own momentum. And eventually you have "What do we do now?"

A game I'm running now is a short campaign that's supposed to last only a few months, because I'm SUPPOSED to be moving sometime in August. The PCs are gypsies, and their caravan/family/whatnot has disappeared. So the campaign is just "Find and reunite with our family". Everything else is "Sidetrek or distraction", and one big sandbox.

 

[The Eternal GM]

For most games I'd play, this style is entirely a positive. I do agree with the 'No List' which allows each player (and the GM) to insist on at least ONE thing, class, whatever that does not exist in the campaign at all... Further No's can be added, but let everyone have one that they can happily exclude.

I think the long-term GM in me would prefer this communal, co-operative approach. For the exact reason that it helps alleviate the problems that have done in so many of my own campaigns. Behind the screen, I'd love the idea of my group doing this... And y'know what, they are gonna! Next game I start (whenever that might be) I'm going to use all of this and see where it takes us.

 

[Rechan]

A few situations occur to me where the "Flesh out the area" doesn't really work.

1) Exploration games/games with lots of travel. If you're leaving the "starting area" pretty soon, it doesn't matter what's there.

2) Short-term games. The communal project may not be necessary if for instance you all are going to run through "Return to Castle Ravenloft".

3) A game where the PCs might not even know about the surrounding area. A prime example I give is an anti-hero campaign where all the PCs start off in prison, and the first adventure is just Escape. Although on the other hand, it might work, if they flesh out dangers of the island the prison is on, or whathaveyou.

 

[buzz]

I think fleshing out themes and leaving details for the future is a good way to do it. E.g., in Rechan's #3, knowing about the prison itself and that the PCs will be outlaws on the run is enough to start with. Then you can make sure that any setting details that come later enhance the situation. E.g., the prison isn't surrounded by towns who offer asylum to escapees.