Some Observations from My Most Recent Game

[The Shaman]

The most rewarding campiagns I've ever DM'd were completely open. I beleive this only worked because I had fleshed out such a huge area of the campaign to such a high degree that it was extremely easy to roleplay each npc the characters encountered and everywhere the pc's whent. The players in both these games thrived and really broke out of their "tell me where to go and what to kill molds" It was absolutely awesome. The catch was it took me litteraly months of prep time for both campaigns to get everything fleshed out and at my fingertips.

I can relate to all of that - great times, but a lot of work.

The most enjoyable games I've GM'd are those in which the characters inhabit the world - true protagonists in every sense of the word. The trick I've found is to give them a fully-fleshed out world to explore.

With the right players this works well in D&D, but I find I tend to create stronger adventure hooks for my Modern games - unless the campaign is based around characters who are crooks (who tend to be fairly self-motivated), the characters tend to need a bit more direction, or so it's been my experience.

 

[soulcat]

I DM for a group of three in Forgotten Realms.

I deliberatley chose Realms for the group, because the back story is well known and then I could just place my campaign ideas over the top of it, and allow them to make informed choices based one their knowledge.

This works for the group.

My original quest for them (way back when they where 1st level) is still happening now that they are 16th level. They keep getting side tracked by choices they make.

The last choice they made (5 months ago, and 4 levels ago) has led to some of the best roleplaying they have done ever. They where confronted by a Zhentarim mage (who I was expecteing them to fight) they where intimidated by his Black Dragon mount and decided to agree to a trade agreement with the Zhentarim.

This mage has since become a Lich and has broken the non agression pact and the trade agreement, and now they are on the edge of a huge conflict involving The Zhents, Cormyr, Sembia, and probably the Dalelands.

I remind them every now and then that they are supposed to be taking out a Dracolich on behalf of the Dwarven Clerics God, and reclaiming Thunderholme for the Dwarves, and to there credit they really want to do that, but they (and I) really enjoy all these side stories that keep coming up.

There are still 3 NPC's from the past who I always intended to make a return with, and they are still planned for the future, also I have story archs planned for the Bladesinger and the Dragon Disciple, that keep coming up through prophetic dreams, but while they're having fun, and I'm having fun who cares.

The problem with this open system? Burn out. After a year and a half non stop, I am on my first break. inventing new story cycles every 2 weeks, on the spot has taken its toll. Of course now I get a couple of months to flesh out some new ideas we probably won't use, before diving back in refreshed and ready.

So a good mix of Planned story/campaign arch, and player choice is what I recomend for anyone. Even if you ignore the campaign arch, it gives you somewhere to return to when the side tracks ends. One day they might kill the Dracolich, whos knows... The fun is finding out.

 

[Haltherrion]

So a good mix of Planned story/campaign arch, and player choice is what I recomend for anyone. Even if you ignore the campaign arch, it gives you somewhere to return to when the side tracks ends. One day they might kill the Dracolich, whos knows... The fun is finding out.

I think you suggest a fine, workable mix but since we making suggestions, I heartily recommend a strong story with most of the game focused on the story.

Why have a story? It focuses the players and the ref and is much more likely to give you a campaign that feels like your favorite fantasy novel. After all, all your favorite fantasy novels have plots.

Why focus on the story? I've found that too many digressions tends to make for a story that never really goes anywhere which isn't a whole lot better than no story at all. (Too much is a function of how frequently you game but I'd suggest no more than one digression per 3-4 scenarios.)

I moved to strong stories from very open campaigns about ten years ago and it has done wonders for my game. It isn't because I didn't put alot into my open settings, it's because story is a powerful thread to tie everything together and provide a sense of accomplishment.

There are ways to do story so that players still have choice. If you stole Lord of the Rings and put the players in the Shire with the ring and the black riders bearing down on them, they'd have plenty of choice on what to do and where to go but there is still strong story providing context.

 

[soulcat]

I completely agree with the strong story.

My players are really bad at doing Character histories, so I started the campaign by writing them each a character history, they had input and it ended up being a joint venture for each of them. The reason I did this? Because I know my players and new they'd need pushing in the right direction from the start.

From the very begining they have been on a quest to reclaim Thunderholme (a dwarven city in the Thunderpeaks, inhabited by a dracolich). They have this aim in mind, but have spent a year and a half (of real time) getting side tracked a lot.

They did actually try once to retake it, but they where woefully underprepared, and the Dracolich basicaly laughed in their faces and sent them away (She wants them to come back with an army, then she can kill them too. The Dracolich is Aurglarossa, from the Cult of the Dragon 2nd ed book, she is a Cleric of the Dragon god of Death/Undeath, and uses undead dwarves as her guards).

In the mean time, whilst trying to prepare to kill the Dracolich they have been side tracked by a healthy mixture of preplanned diversions and Character choices.

I agree totally that without the back story of the Quest to retake Thunderholme, and the story provided by it being in FR, the open style of my DMing wouldn't be as easy to keep going. With the support of those two however, like I said in my previous posts, the players have really raised there game, and I've seen some of the best roleplaying they've ever done, whole nights where I've basically been a note taker. Nights where They've become so imersed in their characters that I've been worried that the arguments are becoming real (only to have a food or drink request break the tension and demonstrate that the RPing was really THAT good).

So, in Summation, Railroading bad. Guiding story good. Tangental story breaks good. Players enjoying themselves? Priceless.

 

[Haltherrion]

So, in Summation, Railroading bad. Guiding story good. Tangental story breaks good. Players enjoying themselves? Priceless.

I'll second the

 

[Haltherrion]

My players are really bad at doing Character histories, so I started the campaign by writing them each a character history, they had input and it ended up being a joint venture for each of them. The reason I did this? Because I know my players and new they'd need pushing in the right direction from the start.

Getting decent backgrounds out of players is a whole new topic (no doubt already covered smoewhere before on EnWorld). It can be tough. Usually one or two players will do a good job but the rest tend not to.

I've done what you did above a few times. More recently it was a hybrid where I worked hard with the players to come up with something mutually acceptable. (Although I did write my wife's ;-)

If you are doing player's background, you're probably well aware of this but one point I've found is to make sure the histories really matter which is easier said than done. If the players write up histories completely on their own, especially in a non-commercial setting (where the info to the players on the setting is limited) then very likely the places and people the player writes in are not of interest to the referee.

On the latter point, I'm reminded of what budding writers are told: don't worry about someone plagiarizing your story concept. Almost never happens because no two writers will be that interested in each other's story concepts. A character background is like a story concept and a referee is like a story teller. He isn't likely to want to use someone else's story concept aka background.

But if the two collaborate on the background, then you can get a usable background. Takes a concerted effort to make sure the background has usable hooks (that is, there is something on going and the places and people are accessible) but it can be worth it.

As with not digressing from the story much, if your players have produced good backgrounds each with several interesting friend and foe NPCs, it is necessary to use them often and frequently. A game group with six players might have 18 NPCs or more referenced in their backgrounds (we used a recent system that forced 2 friend and 2 foes for 24 for the game group).

If a campaign lasts two years and a scenario on average 2 sessions and you game every other week (well beyond my groups ability unfortunately), you'd have to refence a friend or foe 3 out of 4 scenarios to use them all. It isn't necessary to use them all but if you don't make much use of them, the players aren't really going to bother making detailed backgrounds.

Our next session next weekend, one PC will get a fleeting glimpse of a Dracolich she has been chasing for decades (I like dracoliches, too) and another will find their long time foe lurking in an abandoned city. So one passing reference to a foe and another at the heart of the scenario. Plus another friend and a foe on a flying fortress that they are sharing (not all foes are of the variety "kill the PC on sight".)