How much buy-in from the players do you need before you start a campaign?

[Imaginary Number]

A few threads have touched upon this topic recently, and I thought it might be worth its own discussion. How much, if any, explicit agreement between the GM and the players about the nature and goals of a campaign should exist before play starts? For example, I typically have detailed conversations with my players about whether they want to play pirates or ninjas or noble knights or whatever, along with their relationships and the starting adventure hooks, before we even start rolling dice for ability scores. (Yes, we still roll for ability scores. Although it's an anachronism, for us it's still an essential part of the game.) Surprises and twists of plot will come later, of course, but for me it's important to begin with a pretty well-developed baseline for what the players expect. Other GMs I know, however, are more willing to deviate from those expectations even at the beginning of a campaign in order to emphasize an adventure hook or to set a tone. What's your preference?

 

[S'mon]

I get the idea of the sort of game I want to run, and ask if players are interested. Normally player input to the shape of the campaign comes at chargen and in-play. However I am currently asking potential players about the ruleset they'd prefer for my next campaign. But I'm unlikely to change the general idea of the campaign - a sandbox set in the Wilderlands, probably starting out in the City State of the Invincible Overlord.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I just propose what I would like to run and see what the gang says. If there is no hesitation or counter offer by someone else to run something different then it's a go.

 

[IronWolf]

I think it is a good idea to give a heads up of what type of campaign you have in mind. Not sure you have to go into a large amount of detail, but a few highlights of what you have in mind seems reasonable. The game needs to be fun for everyone and if what you have in mind does not appeal to the group then the fun factor for the campaign is apt to suffer.

 

[Naszir]

I don't need a ton of buy-in. I have been gaming with the same set of guys since high school (we're all 38 now.) We pretty much know what we all like and they know how I run things. Mainly I get something set out for them and give them the general idea of the campaign. (I've had only one time where one of the players really wanted to try out the world of Midnight and we all agreed to give it try.) They then give what kind of characters they are going to run. Usually they are good at giving some backstory and then I'll use the backstory to weave more threads into the campaign.


I'd say early on in my DMing career I didn't do that enough. I had a plot I wanted the game to follow and I railroaded a lot of things. Personally it is just too much work to go sandbox a game and have all the intricacies that I want to put into things. Lately I have gotten better at giving choices to the players at key moments. It's a way to keep the players moving in the right story direction but allowing them to switch tracks without falling of the railroad.

 

[DragonLancer]

I've been DMing for roughly the same group of people for the last twenty years so I don't need a buy in. Also, why do you need a buy in? Do your players want to play D&D (or whatever system) or don't they?

 

[Umbran]

. Also, why do you need a buy in? Do your players want to play D&D (or whatever system) or don't they?

Because they're your friends, and you want to make sure you're all having a good time? It's kind of like asking if people want to play two-hand touch or tackle football before you start the first play.

There's more ways to play D&D, or any other game, than you can shake a stick at. Not all those ways are fun for all people.

How much you need to go over really depends on the people involved. I recently got a new bunch of folks together, and I didn't know all their preferences well beforehand, so I had a discussion with each in turn to figure out what they wanted. After this campaign runs its course, I'd probably not have to do much of anything before starting another game with the same group.

 

[IronWolf]

Also, why do you need a buy in? Do your players want to play D&D (or whatever system) or don't they?

There are a multitude of genres you can play with the D&D ruleset. Maybe you have a traditional fantasy world setting, or an oriental setting or a swashbuckling adventure on the high seas. All can be played with the D&D ruleset, but all have a different feel and may or may not fit in with what the players are expecting. If the players aren't into oriental settings and you have a campaign that is focused in this genre the players are not as apt to enjoy it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My players usually don't need much buy-in. They trust me to provide a fun game. And they know I'm willing to scrap a campaign if we're not having fun with it. Usually it's a matter of logistics, as we all like Adventure Paths. For example, I'm currently running a converted Rise of the Runelords because that's what I had left from my terminated Dungeon subscription. I'm ready to start working on my next conversion and Paizo has since put out 7 more Adventure Paths (in blurb form if not actually out already), so I sent the blurbs to my players and asked for a vote. Since the logostics are more wide open this time around, I'm asking for more buy-in than usual.

 

[Anselyn]

Do your players want to play D&D (or whatever system) or don't they?

I think that negotiating a change to a new game - e.g. Ars Magica or Pendragon - requires grappling with a new ruleset and potentially a new set of expectations of what adventures are and what characters do. It definitely has to be well informed decision by the players on that system with knowledge of what it would be in your hands.

Also, for example: CoC/ToC - pulp or purist is an important choice.