"Open" vs. "Goal" Campaigns

[Sir Whiskers]

As a player, I've always preferred open campaigns. The first campaign I played in (1977-79), I had a fighter character who established his own barony and a rogue (thief) who set up his own thieves guild and spy network. I lost a lot of characters, as an open campaign can lead to parties taking on challenges their not ready for, but eventually we learned to run away (and come back when we'd gained a few levels).

As a gm, I always try to have a mix. My campaigns will have several major story arcs going on, but the players always (almost) have the option of ignoring things and going their own way. Of course, that really only works if the campaign includes consequences. As an example, in my current campaign, the pc's stole some grisly items from a kobold cleric (they needed the components for a flesh to stone potion). The cleric was disgraced and now wants revenge. The pc's have been warned by an npc they met, so now they're planning to go after the cleric before he gets them. I have no idea how it will end up, which is half the fun (for both the gm and the players).

 

[howandwhy99]

I have to admit, I'm behind Sir Whiskers 100% on this topic. Goal-based adventures seem to beat the players over the head with one or two story leads and the players are supposed to "go along with it". Maybe this works with simulation games, where you're trying to recreate a specific story, like the old DL modules, but the the innovation, experimentation, and for me, the fun never seems to show up in these games.

Right now our GM is running us through a very active world with an overarching story behind it. However, he has said that he wants us to choose our own path. And my fellow players do keep suggesting ideas that have nothing to do with the current plotlines. My current favorite is to let the Mongolian horde overrun our city (Budapest) and to shore up in the undead filled catacombs beneath. Then, using hit-and-run tactics to mess with the coming Army after they've taken the city. We'd pretty much do whatever seemed fun: fortify the catacombs, 'taint' their blackpowder stores, put soap in their rations, charm 'em, forge documents, start an underground revolution, console those poor, young lasses stuck in the city, etc. If we get bored, then we can try and sneak out. If we caught, we're in the hands of the DM.

IMHO, the players (altogether) really make the game enjoyable more often than the GM. The gamemaster is the foundation for all this: interweaving more storylines, throwing cool characters at us, dropping in interesting combats, weird items, quirky spells, horrifying monsters, challenging dungeons, you get the idea.

The players are there to be the story. If you're saying to yourself, damn!, I wish we could start our own country in the Caribbean; Do it! It's your fantasy. (You might get bored after you've built paradise, though. Of course, if the GM should arrive with some guerrillas wishing to free the country, don't let it get you down )

Everyone's there to facilitate one another's good-time fantasy And likewise, everyone (not just the GM) should prepare and take iniative when it comes to playing. Personal initiative. Then play it, wing it, get into character, tell jokes, have fun.

All of this is IMHO, of course. Play however you like

 

[willpax]

Let me begin by saying I've always been a goal-oriented DM myself.

I think one big difference between a pleasant cruise through interesting country and being railroaded has to do with pacing--do the players have time to follow a few interesting digressions or not on the way to armageddon (or whatever).

Like several others, I have an overall plot in the background (actually, several). But, in the midst of this overall plot there is plenty of room for some short-term problem solving (in this case, finding out who was rigging some gladiatorial games so that they could bet on the fixed fights in order to solve a cash flow problem) as well as player-induced plotlines (one demon, now released--oops!) on the way to the now not even dimly susp[ected showdown with the Shadowy Group of Sinister Priests Who Want to Take Over the World.

World-spanning plots can take their time developing. My advice is to let the players take their time. It will make the eventual ending that much sweeter.

 

[VagabondDM]

In all honesty I've never really given my style much though. I would hazard that I run something of a strange hybrid between the two. Although I'm probably wrong.

I almost always have an over reaching goal in my campaigns. But when all is said and done the players are allowed to ignore any hooks I lay for a particular sequence of the story. I usually have some sort of back up plan in place to expose them to the events they need to see and get them the info they need.

The closest I came to running a completely open ended campaign was when I allowed my players to take on the roles of the Supervillians in my Champions universe. Much like any comic I simply had the world react to them.

Once I stop getting distracted and run a campaign that my wife plays in for more than a little bit I'll ask her.

 

[Creamsteak]

Here are my top picks for each catagory, here, at the In Character Forum. I'd have picked more, but the contents list only contains 8 games listed so far, soon to be 16 when every DM adds his/her game.

Open Games
The Light Hearted Hack n' Slash
Heroes of the World

Goal Games
The Psionicle
Party of Seven Strangers
Warrior's of Dawn, Heroes of Twilight

 

[Moleculo]

I used to run tons of goal based adventures, but once i tried doing an open campaign, it turned out to be really fun, so thats waht happened. I would advise you to try a little bit of both if possible, ie have an over arching adventure with tons of between time.

jake

 

[Eosin the Red]

Like Willpax and others, I use a hybrid of the two.

I start a ball rolling (or several balls) that players may leap onto or not. The other stories continue on to there fated outcome sans the PCs.

I am always looking to them to give me great plots...they can tie random stuff into a plot in such a wonderfully convoluted manner that you can miss some of the greatest gaming moments when the PCs worst fears do come true.

I like to run my game against the Babylon5 model - a true story with a beginning, middle, & end but with lots of filler episodes where characters can branch out and do their own thing.

 

[Terraism]

I always preferred goal-orientated campaigns; I've found that they lack survivability for my group, though, so've switched to more "open" ones. Now, I still catch myself trying to turn them into goal campaigns, but... I like to think that, within some channels, they're pretty free.

 

[the Jester]

I generally run open games. There are things going on in the background, though; the world keeps on turning and things keep on happening even if the pcs ignore them.

 

[Deadguy]

It's interesting, because as a player I generally prefer a 'Goal Oriented' campaign, whilst when I DM I am definitely of the 'Open Campaign' persuasion!

I think I like the Goal Oriented campaign as a player because it absolves me from second guessing what the DM really has in mind. Despite protestations to the contrary my experience has been that most DMs have an underlying plot that they are pushing. or rather, if the campaign lasts for a while, it will have several underlying plots in succession, as the DM's fancy is taken by new ideas. I can think of one in particular who is influenced markedly by the books he has read and films he has seen recently. His current interests definitely shape the campaign! As such, I have found as a player that it's easier to go with the flow, even when there are protestations to the contrary (that 'yes, do what you want'). Perhaps it is as Eric says, that many of the DMs I know can't evolve plot freely. For whatever reason, I get a lot less joy when I try and do my stuff, than when I accept what the DM has to offer.

It's because of this that when I DM I have always striven to create multiple, overlapping story arcs, and players can interact with them or ignore them as they will. I keep track of these arcs in the background, so I have some idea how they evolve with time, but I never force the PCs to follow them. For example, in my Shattered World campaign, one arc concerns the striving between a basically decent County and its evil Kingdom neighbour. The PCs involved themselves in a couple of stories showing that the Kingdom is setting up nefarious plans to undermine the Count and lauch an assault. But I never force the PCs to continue with the story - in fact they've been following the leads to an ancient artifact that they sought early on, and they left the area. For reference, I happen to know that the Kingdom will luanch an assault in 5 months and will actually win the battle. If the PCs go back they are in for a surprise! But it doens't worry me that they aren't 'interested' in this story; I am happy to let plots unfold in the background.

I think the real trick with Open Campaigns is to provide enough material to let the players make meaningful choices for their characters' desires. And to have the flexibility to provide interesting things for them to be involved in whatever they choose to do. This genuinely empowers the PCs to set real goals for themselves, but also avoids the sense of aimless wandering where nothing much happens. I find that with practise the need for heroic tales can be fitted in to an open setting with reasonable verisimilitude.