HOMEBREW DMs: How much of your campaign design is Reactive? Proactive?

[TheAuldGrump]

It's a sliding scale based loosely on level. At low levels it is easy to plan for 'most anything. At higher levels they begin shaping the world as well as being shaped by it. At low levels they tend to be told 'go there, do that', at high levels they may end up being the ones doing the telling.

So I plan what the major NPCs are up to, then fiddle with their plans as the PCs interact with their various plots. (One of my favorites was having one of the bad guys being assassinated by another villain - the PCs had mentioned to him what his rival was up to, not realizing that he was another black hat... It sent the players into a tizzy trying to figure out what had happened and why.)

I detail out a timeline on the computer, changing it as the players interfere. (I love using computers for these kind of things, its just so easy to make changes... much easier than in the old days, when all we had were sticks and rocks...) And I keep a contingencies list for what the bad guys can pull out of their, umm..., hats.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hand of Evil]

50/50 - players impact campaigns, adjustments have to be made, the world is ALIVEEEE and somedays you just want to shake things up.

 

[Aristotle]

I'm a little confused by the question as the initial post looks like it is talking about campaign world design, and many of the posts look like they are talking about actual campaigns.

When it comes to world design I am a "top down" designer for the most part. I design areas over a series of more and more detailed passes to a certain level, and then I hit locations I know characters will be visiting and design them the rest of the way using a "bottom up" method. I would have to say that I know 75% of my campaign world before a player's character ever sets foot in it. And I have a solid foundation to build the other 25% on whenever the need arises.

As far as campaigns go... That depends. I've run very organized adventures/campaigns where every detail was planned and the characters were more or less nudged in the right direction if they got off track. I've also run a bunch ov very loose adventures/campaigns where I give the characters a bunch of possible directions, tell the player's what their characters have, and then let them run with the game any which way they like. So on actual campaigns or adventures I would have to say I am 50/50.

 

[Gez]

100% Reactive - I let the players drive everything. I'm just there to referee combat and play the NPCs they tell me exist. If they don't ask about it, it's not there.

Heh, I'd like to "run" a campaign like that, but tough luck getting players that would keep the ball rolling...

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm in the 70/30 lump. I generally fit a solid world together and then kick of the main NPCs plotlines but then the whole world starts evolving. Areas flesh out as players become interested in them and NPCs' motivations alter. For the first 5 levels or so, it was nearly 90/10 but as they level they have ever increasing influence on the setting.

 

[jeffh]

Anywhere from 50% to 90% proactive - a lot depends on your player mix. I usually have something specific planned from the word go, but I'm open to seeing that change on me based on player actions. THat hasn't happened much lately, I'm hoping my new group will throw me a few more curveballs because I like it closer to 70 or so rather than the 90+ it's been hovering at for the last three years or so.

 

[The_Universe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poll
100% Reactive - I let the players drive everything. I'm just there to referee combat and play the NPCs they tell me exist. If they don't ask about it, it's not there.


Heh, I'd like to "run" a campaign like that, but tough luck getting players that would keep the ball rolling...

I think I would, too - it would let you feel more like a player.

When I was originally posting the poll, I was thinking about how much fun it would be to design a world that way - design everything reactively, as players/people asked you questions. Start from nothing, and then build from an ever-growing tapestry of information.

I may post a thread about it...

 

[RuminDange]

I went with 30% proactive / 70% reactive. Over the last 4+ years of the campaign, I have planned major events (story only not hard set details), and major NPCs, but everything else tends to be winged as I weave the story together as the players question or become involved in things. Besides one player (my better half) tends to follow every possible plot hook, story line, etc that is discovered, even if it is a very very minor one, she'll investigate it, chase it until it is solved, fully exposed or proves to difficult. This tends to make it difficult to plan everything out but boy does it flesh out NPCs and the world a whole lot faster.

RD

 

[Psion]

I went 70/30 pro/re, though that's probably an average. My main campaign world is pretty well defined and I usually have a "place I wanna go" when I sit down at the table, though I feel the players inevitably do things you wouldn't expect and leads to you making some interesting spot decisions.

 

[Carpe DM]

I'm concerned that proactive and reactive are on different continua.

Good proactivism has to do with preparation and game design. Detail, texture, and plot are the fruits of this preparation.

Bad proactivism has to do with programing the responses of the players. This is called railroading. The cost of railroading is players' sense of control over their characters and therefore their sense of involvement with the world.

Good reactivism has to do with versimilitude. The world must react to the players' actions in order to seem real. The fruit of good reactivism is a sense of dynamism and excitement.

Bad reactivism has to do with overcompensation. The players cleverly solved one puzzle? Ok, I'll just throw another hoop in their way before they can get their reward. The cost of overcompensation is that players stop caring about being inventive, and will dully hop through hoop after hoop.

So, my world?

Hopefully 100% proactive, 100% reactive. I try to plan maps, npcs, dungeons, plot hooks, adventures, ideas, religions, themes, texture, you name it. I'm human, and probably fall short.

But what I don't plan proactively is the actions of the characters.

Reactively, I have monsters make contingency plans, villages use tactics, NPCs remember the parties, bards tell stories of their deeds or crimes, the world spreads and changes in response to the party's actions.

But what I don't do reactively is take away the rewards of cleverness from the party.

best,

Carpe