When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[Reynard]

Last year, I started a D&D 2024 campaign to give the rules a "fair shake" and I decided to base the campaign on a great map (Dyson Logos' Autumnlands) a strong premise (a evil wizard has usurped the throne) and a player-driven narrative. The only requirement was that the PCs all be harmed directly by the Usurper, and their goal is to gain enough power and resources to eventually take him down. And it has been a fun game. We are fast leveling just to see the different tiers of play, but otherwise it has been pretty standard "open world" exploration and adventure.

We are playing via Fantasy Grounds, but we have limited "table time" so late last year (2 month ago ish) we decided to start trying to deal with the "downtime stuff" via our Discord between sessions, and save the sessions for things that need the table (NPC interactions, dungeon delving, fights, etc). The PCs are leaders of the resistance against the Usurper and are trying to build alliances with various factions, as well as pursue personal goals. And while a couple of the players are making an effort, most do not. More importantly, I am always asking them "What are you guys doing next, so I can prep that thing before we play?" )in addiiton to responding to the non-table stuff).

Because of the holidays we had two weeks or so between sessions and they still could not tell me what they were doing next. So I finally had to create a situation they had to respond to.

And the session went great. I presented a scenario where one of the Usurper's main lieutenants was leading an army to an unaffiliated city to force a "treaty" and the PCs beat them there and negotaited with important NPCs etc.. Now, the army is at the gate and the PCs are planning to strike at the general. Great stuff. Lots of fun.

What bugs me though is that I had to revert to a very traditional kind of adventure set up: this thing is happening, what are you doing? When what I was hoping for was a player driven campaign where they decided what was important.

Anyway, I am just grousing. it is a good game and I like the PCs (and the players, of course). I have been trying to force the player-driven thing for a long time and I think maybe that's done and it will be a rollercoaster to the end now.

So, what are your experiences with player driven campaigns? Do you find them to work, require extra effort, or never work? Do you prefer them in actual practice to more directed campaigns, or vis versa? Is your opinion different as a player vs as a GM?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's frustrating; I feel for you. I too often have difficulty encouraging players to be proactive and decide where they want to go in a game. My own partner straight up told me she wants me to give specific things to do and places to go, so personal choice is basically limited to the tactical and free roleplay levels; in short, she wants the actual adventure (not just the premise and the setting) to come from me. And the other players are on board with that too. This makes it hard to run the sandbox I want to run.

I suspect that for a lot of folks, they just don't want to go to the extra effort of making their own adventure and accomplishing personal goals during their relaxation time. I find that frustrating, but don't know what to do about it.

 

[TiQuinn]

I’ve had this work before and it comes down to variables like level of engagement, which usually means one or two players who are highly motivated and invested end up directing the whole shebang and what else is going on in people’s lives. Not coincidentally, this worked great when I was a college age kid where outside of the homework which we weren’t doing anyways, we had plenty of time to think about the game. Today, it’s work, work, work, and personaly I can think about the game maybe an hour before I get to the actual session. Just my two centavos.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have never bothered with player-driven campaigns, because players have this idea that the world exists around them. So they should be able to look around and see what is there before deciding on which things to follow. The other method involves the players inventing things themselves for what is happening on the world, which goes against the idea that there is a living, breathing world that would be turning even if the PCs weren't there.

Thus in my experience what players prefer is to have things in front of them that they can see are happening, but then choose which of those to follow (and how they wish to follow it.) But it means that the GM needs to have these compelling options on hand for the players to find.

 

[Reynard]

I have never bothered with player-driven campaigns, because players have this idea that the world exists around them. So they should be able to look around and see what is there before deciding on which things to follow. The other method involves the players inventing things themselves for what is happening on the world, which goes against the idea that there is a living, breathing world that would be turning even if the PCs weren't there.

Thus in my experience what players prefer is to have things in front of them that they can see are happening, but then choose which of those to follow (and how they wish to follow it.) But it means that the GM needs to have these compelling options on hand for the players to find.

I don't see the conflict. "The world is big and full of things. What do you do?" That is unrelated to either asking the players to make up setting elements, or them needing rails presented for them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see the conflict. "The world is big and full of things. What do you do?" That is unrelated to either asking the players to make up setting elements, or them needing rails presented for them.

To me the conflict is "I dunno. What is there to do? Especially if the eventual end point is to deal with this BBEG?"

From the sounds of it, the campaign has an end point set up... so there IS a linearity to the campaign. The PCs will do a bunch of things in service to getting to that end point. Which means the players can't actually do "anything" because whatever they do has to put them on the rails that end at dealing with the BBEG. So for me... as a player I would want things put in front of me to choose from that actually would serve the campaign and get me heading towards the end.

Giving me the absolute freedom to decide "You know what? I'm going to move to the other side of the world and open a bakery" doesn't serve the campaign. That's not where the campaign is meant to eventually go. Thus I don't want or care to have that absolute freedom given to me if I don't really have it.

I have no idea if your players feel similar or not... but it's possible that they do. Which might explain their reticence to make their own choices on what to do, rather than look for available options that lead towards the inevitable end.

 

[payn]

So, what are your experiences with player driven campaigns? Do you find them to work, require extra effort, or never work? Do you prefer them in actual practice to more directed campaigns, or vis versa? Is your opinion different as a player vs as a GM?

You can lead a gamer to mountain dew, but you cant make them drink. Some folks simply do not want to drive the game. As much as folks complain about railroads, they are popular for a reason. People do like them and shockingly have a great time. Now, sometimes it isnt as black and white as that, perhaps the path isnt entirely linear, but the players are mostly reactive. That could be out of learned behavior or it could just be their preference.

How do I tell which is which? In my experience, a player who wants an open world and wants to be proactive is trying to bust out. Conventional GMs are just as common as conventional players so they often struggle with that. Give them the right environment and they fully bloom. Knowing when a person is ready for it is difficult. We often try and come up with specific game pitches to try and narrow applicants to those who best fit.

In my experience two things tend to happen that derail those game pitches. The first is many players are simply not as into this as hardcore hobbyists. They love games, they want to play them, but they dont spend time reading about them, posting in social media about them, talking about them, etc.. A lot of folks learn by doing. An idea might sound great at inception, but the experience teaches them something else. Sometimes a person thinks, but doesnt know. Secondly, folks just want to game. Everyone thinks they are ready for the next level. Few actually are. I hate to say it but a lot of folks want to join up hoping that everyone else does the heavy lifting. They want to game, but they have no time or desire to put into it beyond showing up once in awhile. This can occasionally have them saying yes to the concept, but really they are just saying yes to a game with an enthusiastic GM.

I think a good GM is mindful of all that. They use their experiences not just with game material, but the players they game with. Im starting a Battletech campaign in a few weeks and I have 18 people interested! I know at least 6 of them are not gonna make it past session 2. I can temper my expectations around that. I am prepared for a soft launch knowing im gonna lose players. There are a few others that might not make it either, but im willing to give them the chance. When it comes to RPGs I have one fast rule. I never start a long term campaign with people I dont know. I always start with one shots so I can try before I buy. This is as much for me as it is for the other players. If im doing a player driven game, im going in with player driven ready players as best as I can. I also know that sometimes I gotta take a chance and be ready if a player or two doesnt work out.

Additionally, GMs need to remember the game is a back and fourth exercise. If you got a specific idea, you need to be flexible with it if the players take it in unexpected directions. Not all GMs are good with this. I've had a good number who shut down and call it quits if the players dont follow the path. Interesting enough, a number of "player driven campaign GMs" I know fall into thsi trap. They want their players to think their linear path is their idea. Its a give and take and you need to be ready to visualize what the compromise looks like. Dont let perfect be the enemy of the good.

-cheers

 

[Reynard]

To me the conflict is "I dunno. What is there to do? Especially if the eventual end point is to deal with this BBEG?"

From the sounds of it, the campaign has an end point set up... so there IS a linearity to the campaign. The PCs will do a bunch of things in service to getting to that end point. Which means the players can't actually do "anything" because whatever they do has to put them on the rails that end at dealing with the BBEG. So for me... as a player I would want things put in front of me to choose from that actually would serve the campaign and get me heading towards the end.

Giving me the absolute freedom to decide "You know what? I'm going to move to the other side of the world and open a bakery" doesn't serve the campaign. That's not where the campaign is meant to eventually go. Thus I don't want or care to have that absolute freedom given to me if I don't really have it.

I have no idea if your players feel similar or not... but it's possible that they do. Which might explain their reticence to make their own choices on what to do, rather than look for available options that lead towards the inevitable end.

You are making a bunch of assumptions that don't apply.

 

[Reynard]

You can lead a gamer to mountain dew, but you cant make them drink. Some folks simply do not want to drive the game. As much as folks complain about railroads, they are popular for a reason. People do like them and shockingly have a great time. Now, sometimes it isnt as black and white as that, perhaps the path isnt entirely linear, but the players are mostly reactive. That could be out of learned behavior or it could just be their preference.
...

Additionally, GMs need to remember the game is a back and fourth exercise. If you got a specific idea, you need to be flexible with it if the players take it in unexpected directions. Not all GMs are good with this. I've had a good number who shut down and call it quits if the players dont follow the path. Interesting enough, a number of "player driven campaign GMs" I know fall into thsi trap. They want their players to think their linear path is their idea. Its a give and take and you need to be ready to visualize what the compromise looks like. Dont let perfect be the enemy of the good.

-cheers

In this case, there is no path, just an agreed upon end goal (we had a strong session 0 establishing this).

Don't get me wrong, the campaign is fun and we have had some wacky adventures so far as the PCs try and build themselves up to be able to go toe to toe with the BBEG.

it is just more me-driven than I was sort of hoping and imagining in the beginning. Which is not a problem, really, so much as a mild disappointment. It is just that last night's session underscored the fact.

Anyway, beyond this specific campaign and group, some of my most favorite periods behind the screen have bene with linear-ish campaigns where the players were really excited to ride the rollercoaster. A good example is when I ran BGiA. That is not a great adventure, but we had a great time because the structure of the adventure allowed us to go hog wild. I had Doom Troopers drop in to Avernus on the PCs. The captured Unicorn became a major NPC. The vampire tree was a high point. And of course it came down to a furious battle in the sky with a fallen angel. Great stuff. linear as all get out.

But I have also had some great player driven campaigns, and in the end I like those more for what they provide that linear, GM driven campaigns can't: truly affecting and surprising stories emerging from play.

 

[LordEntrails]

What bugs me though is that I had to revert to a very traditional kind of adventure set up: this thing is happening, what are you doing? When what I was hoping for was a player driven campaign where they decided what was important.

Did the players agree to this during session 0? Did they know what they were agreeing too?
What you describe would work great, with the right group of players.

It would not work with my current group of players either. I get them to read some flavor driven Discord posts between sessions, mostly. But they almost never respond, even with a thumbs up. They certainly don't always read them regularly. And they never respond to them.

My best "luck" with a player driven campaign was decades ago when I ran play by post games on Rondak's Portal. That was why pretty much everyone was there and weekly or twice weekly posts were expected at a minimum.

Tabletop players though, they often only expect and commit to session times. Anything else is... well outside the norm of expectations.