Too Much 'Design'?

[Infiniti2000]

I'm working on developing a new campaign. We have relatively recently switched to 4E and have two DMs, where we switch out every once in a while. We each run different campaigns, though, so no DMPCs or anything. When we first switched, I ran the group through KotS and now he's running us through Spellguard. The plan is to learn the system well and then restart in each of our respective homebrews.

Enough background of 'why', which probably isn't important, but my question is very general. Is it possible to have too much design in the world? I've generated several freeform flowcharts for important NPCs and groups to try and tie most (not all) of the plots I have in mind together. I've never done this before, however, it's always been 1 adventure after another. But, I'm wondering if I've gone overboard. Should the plots really be very intertwined? How much is too much?

I plan to be very flexible and change things in reaction to the PC's choices, so maybe I'm not overly concerned. Maybe I should simply consider it a guideline?

 

[Engilbrand]

I generally don't plan stuff. I throw things out to my players and see what they're interested in.
I have 2 players in an Eberron game. They decided to focus the game on the Changeling Bard, rather than the Elven Ranger. The Bard knew a forbidden dance, and she wanted to learn the other 6. That was all I had to start. Trust me, I had no idea what I was going to do.
Over the next few sessions, I got a feel for what they wanted to do and started throwing out random things. In some cases, something seemed fun to me, so I threw it into the game. It was only last session that I finally decided which route to take the game.
I let their ideas gradually percolate into a campaign idea. Now, they're working towards their Paragon Paths and about to truly focus on the future.
I don't understand people who plan everything. Then again, I'm a teacher who never plans anything. I wing it. That's just how I am.

If you plan too much, you run the risk of forcing things. I railroaded for the first time last game, and I realized it too late. I told them that I was cool with them forgoing my idea and just saying it all worked out OK. They happily played through, though. I made sure that I found something interesting to do with every idea that they came up with.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm working on developing a new campaign. We have relatively recently switched to 4E and have two DMs, where we switch out every once in a while. We each run different campaigns, though, so no DMPCs or anything. When we first switched, I ran the group through KotS and now he's running us through Spellguard. The plan is to learn the system well and then restart in each of our respective homebrews.

Enough background of 'why', which probably isn't important, but my question is very general. Is it possible to have too much design in the world? I've generated several freeform flowcharts for important NPCs and groups to try and tie most (not all) of the plots I have in mind together. I've never done this before, however, it's always been 1 adventure after another. But, I'm wondering if I've gone overboard. Should the plots really be very intertwined? How much is too much?

I plan to be very flexible and change things in reaction to the PC's choices, so maybe I'm not overly concerned. Maybe I should simply consider it a guideline?

When you design stuff, the more details you want, the simpler they have to be if you want your players to be engaged and alert. Names of NPCs are a common example. If you design a history of the elven royal family and all the family members have this kind of name "Illyssinnathillquillon", your players are going to give you a big "Huh? Whatever, kill stuff." If I'm giving out names and places, I always go for the tried and true tropes like Shadowraven, Reaver, The Mist Ruins, The Dead Barrows, etc. The names are easy to spell, remember, and you can fill up your campaign world with the stuff and players will likely know. Sometimes it's better to say the Elven King Goldmist than to say the Elven King Illyssinnathillquillon.

Also, when you design and provide details, make an element stand out. Like if the PC's read a history of The Mist Ruins you can describe it as a series of towers shaped like gnarled fingers that barely pierce the veil of a dark fog. Everyone who knows what the word Ptolus is immediately associates it as the city with the dreaded spire that reaches up to the heavens. It's that spire that stands out.

The next thing is focus on the matter at hand. No need to detail the country next door if you're going to have an adventure where they are going in the opposite direction. When I write my mods, I only write the details for what the mods encompass and give them out in the form of handouts. That way it's with them.

Happy Gaming!

 

[Gilladian]

I used to try to plan everything. Then I realized that every few adventures, I was throwing all my plans away and starting over, anyway, because my PCs had done things that disconnected what I was doing now to what I had planned for later.

So this time, I have tried very hard NOT to plan more than 1-2 adventures ahead of the PCs. I actually have a very large plate in front of me and them, because we're playing in Ptolus, a huge city with a megadungeon beneath it, but I'm letting them give me their ideas for what they want to happen next; I'm not forcing anything.

There are a LOT of loose threads dangling, and the PCs could choose to follow or ignore many of them, all of them, or even leave the city and go off on another tangent. We'll see!

So, essentially, I'd say plan what you want, but realize it may all be wasted, and don't worry about it if it is. You can always use it as background in another campaign later.

 

[aco175]

I like to have some things planned out and others I allow to develop as we go. My current campaign is very simple, I have a town along two nations borders that is the jumping off point to explore a recently discovered 'valley of the kings' in the mountains. After a few encounters in town and assistance to the duke, to make enough m oney to pay for the charter to lawfully explore the valley, they still have not gotten there.

I have taken as few sections of modules and other encounters that I found to hodgepodge together some story arcs. They are almonst lev6 and at this rate will not hit the valley until lev 9 or 10. I had planned for them to be at the valley around lev3 but for whatever reason they are not. I have a lot planned forthe valley that I need to upgrade and may have wasted some of my time wioth. For instance I have 3 small dungeons made for lev3-4 characters, and a evil npc party for lev4 villians. Most of the story parts I can keep like the castle that guards the entrance to the valley is a sort of rest area held by an early party that now provides rest for other parties. I have an idea for things in the castles basement that are locked away and need to be dealt with.

I guess what I 'm trying to say is that it is good to have some things laid out, but be free enough with the long range plans to be able to modify them.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I have a flowchart all set for some adventure I may run in the future.
However, I am now realizing that things probably won't happen nearly the way I plan in the flowchart.

Still, my flowchart has given me several ideas for "mini-campaigns" which last a few sessions:
: tracking a traiterous NPC ally
: solving a poisoned water supply
: finding an animal-like oracle / farseer
: investigating a fallen fortress

A flowchart is a good source for "plot hooks".
So take your flowchart, and divide it into several "mini-adventures", and keep them "at-your-side" so when the time is right, your players can run 'em.

 

[Sanglorian]

Is it possible to have too much design in the world? I've generated several freeform flowcharts for important NPCs and groups to try and tie most (not all) of the plots I have in mind together. I've never done this before, however, it's always been 1 adventure after another. But, I'm wondering if I've gone overboard. Should the plots really be very intertwined? How much is too much?

One of the mistakes I make is to overdesign in irrelevant areas. Everything you design should be an opportunity for adventure, since that's what D&D is all about.

I think this has been best explained in Ryan Stoughton's TRAPs system. In short, focus your design on threats to the PCs, rewards the PCs can use, assets the PCs can develop and then use and problems the PCs must resolve.

This is not about getting rid of the fluff. It's about making the fluff matter. For example, don't create a pantheon of gods that are mainly static. Flesh out two gods that hate each other; a god of the earth whose blood is welling through the ground; a god that has been born on earth and is creating a popular movement. If you are designing a matriarchal town, make the fact that it is matriarchal matter to the adventure - otherwise, that is a useless detail.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So this time, I have tried very hard NOT to plan more than 1-2 adventures ahead of the PCs. I actually have a very large plate in front of me and them, because we're playing in Ptolus, a huge city with a megadungeon beneath it, but I'm letting them give me their ideas for what they want to happen next; I'm not forcing anything.

Interestingly, I want to use Banewarrens in my campaign so I'm trying to account for the organizations and NPCs for the future. I also obviously need the Spire, but don't want to use Ptolus itself.

There are a LOT of loose threads dangling, and the PCs could choose to follow or ignore many of them, all of them, or even leave the city and go off on another tangent. We'll see!

I actually find this quite concerning. Not that I'm suggesting it doesn't work for you, but that I would think with LOTS of plot threads, the players will get confused. Maybe this is simply an artifact of our play style and how seldom we play (1/week at best). With too many threads, people won't remember everything. I certainly don't want to make them remember some key name several months from now (not many sessions), so I'm looking for ways to minimize that. Maybe I'll simply point out such clues, something like "You've met her before when you once entered..."

 

[Gilladian]

Well, all the possible options are a bit scary, but I find that a lot of them can be handled by good encounter tables, repositioning of readied events, and a few simple reminders. We spend a fair amount of time talking about their options in character, and going over the campaign's background; my PCs really enjoy that sort of thing.

We also only play 1x a week, and only for about 3 hours at a time, but I have very attentive players (except for the 12 year old, who just sort of goes along for the ride, plot-wise), who take good notes, make maps, and really think about their world. I'm lucky!

And when they do something illogical, or miss a big piece of info, I stop and TELL them. I don't believe in punishing them for forgetting...

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

As for small-ish campaigns or plot-arcs, I will usually identify a handful of significant NPCs (the uber-BBEG, 3 or 4 other significant badguys, maybe an ally), define a simple motive or goal for each, and plot out intertwining timelines for each, showing how they all interact up to the climax WITHOUT the PCs interference. (Kind of like outlining a novel)

Then rewind back to the beginning of the campaign, and turn the PCs loose, throwing them hooks tho take or ignore as they see fit. Whenever the PCs impact the timelines in some way, I'll re-adjust the plotlines to accomodate the PCs' actions.

Of course, I always keep and extra site and an extra BBEG or two in case the PCs wander too far "off camera". Just in case.