What Motivates You To Join A Campaign?

airwalkrr

Adventurer
What is it that motivates you to join a campaign? Is the options the DM allows you in character building (e.g. getting to play that crusader you've wanted)? Is it the campaign setting? Is it the style of the campaign (e.g. dungeonpunk, horror, or swashbuckling)? I want to fish for ideas with this thread and then start a poll to see which things people like to see in campaigns.

In this thread, it seemed like there was a lot of opposition to what I described as a "generic" fantasy world. What I was getting at was I wanted to leave options open to players so that they could play the soulknife or raptoran character they wanted to and I could find a way to work it into the world. But is a complex multiverse like that TOO diverse and thus too bland? So I put it to you EN World, what is it that you look for in a campaign?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A cohesive theme with internal logical consistency. A well thought out world that lives and breathes on it's own. Even if it's a short lived campaign it should ooze flavour. Something fleshed out well enough that I can easily develop an intuitive feel for how people behave, pros & cons of certain classes and races, and what kind of adventures I can look forward to.
 



Considering where you live, I can see why. Of course I feel WV is kind of the black hole of any gaming at times.
 


Well, in my case it'd be that someone else actually wanted to DM...but that doesn't really answer your question.

A generic fantasy world is open, permissive and fun with lots of room for PC creativity. But it can get out of hand. I've heard the arguments against permissive settings before and I just don't buy it. Say you DO actually have a guy who really wants to play a ninja. There's no way you can tell me that there's absolutely no strange-little-corner-of-the-world that you could make up for him to be from, and make it somewhat believable. (this assumes a reasonably "normal" D&D world.)

I'll go against the grain here and say that I don't believe that setting is key. I enjoyed the Star Wars movies in spite of the fact that I didn't know anything about the planets that Chewie, Han Solo, or any of those guys came from. (We only knew that there was some kind of life-oath that Chewie owed Han) We didn't even know much about Tatooine except that it had 2 suns and was nothing but a big frigging desert. It just wasn't integral to the story that was being told. The setting was just a backdrop.

There's a pattern in fantasy fiction, and if you read a lot of it, you know it. The first couple pages of the book include a map of the entire realm/continent. You can be pretty much assured that all the major points on the map will see some sort of action before the whole cycle of books is finished. These stories are often like a grand tour of a whole continent. Many guys (unfortunately, IMO) model their campaigns the same way. The whole continent is laid out and every flavor detail of the setting set down, with no wiggle room to account for offbeat characters. As a player, I often find this sort of inflexibility unfortunate.

Having said that, the DM does a lot of work, so I don't begrudge it that much and will usually play along merrily...I'm just happy to be playing for a change. (an aside: I really only get annoyed when the DM is a total control freak and begins overruling even the PHB on a regular basis for the sake of his setting. Then I'd usually walk.)

You can run a whole campaign within a specified region, where what lies outside that region is only known in the vaguest of terms. One reason I quit using FR was that it was so well known by my players that even characters born and raised in Cormyr seemed to have an almost intimate knowledge of all the other major spots in Faerun, from Waterdeep to Thay...which really stretched my own sense of believability. I persanally think of common fantasy world folk as having, at best, even the foggiest notion of what lay beyond the next mountain range, let alone the rest of the continent. Anything they DO know, came from storytellers.

My point here is that, to the perspective of that average commoner, there's lots of strange lands beyond that which I know, and it isn't too far a stretch to say that new guy in town with all these strange abilities is from one of those places that I don't know. Pretty much leaves my setting open to almost anything.

There's a saying that used to get thrown around a lot in the old TSR days. I believe it was the title of a regular column in Dragon. The phrase is "The play's the thing". I don't know how it was meant back then, but I take it to mean that game considerations trump all else. A great setting is nice, but not integral to a good game. You can have a wonderfully fleshed out setting, with every rock and tree itemized and every civilization detailed, but still run a stinker of a game. Believe me...I've seen this from both sides of the screen.

A good game needs a story, a villain, goals, and a compelling reason for the adventurers to adventure. It doesn't much matter if your home base is a village built high in the tops of ancient Redwood trees just of the verge of a tundra, or a village that hangs suspended between colossal sized palm trees on a desert continent somewhere. Either way, its a village in the trees where you go to sleep at night, and a place where you may have to stand and be counted when the time comes to defend it.

And, maybe they have an extra room for that strange ninja guy from the land of Far Away that you've been hanging out with lately.
 

Basically what every one else has said, oppurtunity, however. Given the choice? Anything with Dragons or Undead. Zombies make me giddy . . . .
 

I suppose I will go ahead and chime in with what motivates me to join a campaign. The most important thing for me is a DM who knows the rules and is in control. I also tend to prefer games set in Greyhawk, but hardly ever get to play in one so I could hardly call that a requirement. I like a DM who knows how to say no to his players, even if he is saying no to me. That shows me that he is thinking about the consequences allowing a certain thing into the campaign world will mean, and that also means he therefore must have a plan for how he wants things to unfold, or at least a vague idea. Now of course, some DMs are simply prejudiced towards certain things. I once met a DM who never allowd magic missile in his campaigns, even in AD&D. There was no talking him out of it. He was simply of the opinion that there should be no automatic hits in the game that did not at least give you a save, at leasts not for a 1st level spell. He once offered to let my wizard learn it as a 3rd or 4th level spell, an offer which I turned down. But on the whole, if a DM is limiting what things come into his campaign, it is because he is trying to create a specific environment, and I appreciate the thought that goes into that. I like it when a DM is knowledgeable and in enough control of the game to make me think I am choosing my own path, even when I am being gently guided.

Other than Greyhawk, I also tend to favor games where I know the players, but I will play with almost anybody once. If I can't stand a person, I can always find some solutions, the simplest of which involves leaving the game.
 


Remove ads

Top