When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[TwoSix]

Why are you assuming this? Why can't the players just be exploring the setting through their PCs, with no assumption that everything they encounter is related to them and their personal story in some way?

Because that isn't the type of game the OP is talking about. I'm not assuming, I'm basing my response on the contents of the opening post.

 

[Reynard]

Because that isn't the type of game the OP is talking about. I'm not assuming, I'm basing my response on the contents of the opening post.

I may have been unclear. The entire setting fits the over-arching story being told -- the PCs as a revenge squad against the Usurper -- but that doesn't mean every aspect of it is crafted with them in mind. My goal was to have a adventure rich setting that made sense within the context of the campaign, where there were plenty of opportunities for the PCs to seek to empower themselves in different ways.

And they have. They plundered some old dungeons in search of loot. They freed a bunch of magic users confined in petrification because the Usurper doesn't want rivals but may need them later. They plundered a demon guarded hoard left over from an attempt to summon Tiamat to the world 1000 years ago and in so doing have made themselves known to an ancient red dragon they may or may not try and weaponize against the Usurper. They have harried soldiers and pillaged caravans and made deals with pirates and disaffected nobles. Now they are poised to take out one of the major lieutenants of the Usurper.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because that isn't the type of game the OP is talking about. I'm not assuming, I'm basing my response on the contents of the opening post.

You are assuming that everything faced by the PCs throughout the campaign relates to the ultimate goal of overthrowing the wizard-tyrant. That's not what I read, and that's not what I assumed.

 

[TwoSix]

I may have been unclear. The entire setting fits the over-arching story being told -- the PCs as a revenge squad against the Usurper -- but that doesn't mean every aspect of it is crafted with them in mind. My goal was to have a adventure rich setting that made sense within the context of the campaign, where there were plenty of opportunities for the PCs to seek to empower themselves in different ways.

And they have. They plundered some old dungeons in search of loot. They freed a bunch of magic users confined in petrification because the Usurper doesn't want rivals but may need them later. They plundered a demon guarded hoard left over from an attempt to summon Tiamat to the world 1000 years ago and in so doing have made themselves known to an ancient red dragon they may or may not try and weaponize against the Usurper. They have harried soldiers and pillaged caravans and made deals with pirates and disaffected nobles. Now they are poised to take out one of the major lieutenants of the Usurper.

Ok, so more "sandbox-y", I suppose (at least how I normally use the term.) Player-directed, but not built around the characters.

 

[Reynard]

Ok, so more "sandbox-y", I suppose (at least how I normally use the term.) Player-directed, but not built around the characters.

Yes.

I guess I should have defined "player driven" for this thread in the OP, since folks will certainly have their own definitions.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, what are your experiences with player driven campaigns?

I run player driven campaigns pretty much exclusively. There can be GM driven segments if the players actively pursue such things, but it's generally far less common than the players driving the narrative.

Do you find them to work, require extra effort, or never work?

I find they work great, and take far less work than a prepped campaign, because very little needs to be decided beforehand. I also find it's only slightly more work during a session, and far less effort than trying to steer a prepped game "back on track" as it were. I've never found coming up with stuff on the fly to be all that difficult. Whereas prepping stuff in advance drives me batty because my brain always goes off on too many "what if" tangents. I'm good with worldbuilding lore and developing situations and NPC rivalries, but coming up with a plotline for the PCs to follow drives me crazy. I also interject a lot of Burning Wheel philosophy and often have the players give their PCs goals even if the system doesn't have such things, simply because BW Beliefs and the play loop it creates is by far the most effective way of running a player driven sandbox I have ever encountered. My job as GM is to create challenges for the PCs to encounter as they pursue and attempt to complete their stated goals. That philosophy of gameplay makes running player driven sandboxes so easy I honestly don't understand why it's not the normal way of running games hobby wide. I see so many "how to make prep easy" YT videos pop up in my feed and I always chuckle to myself and think, just run it the way BW does it and it's as easy as pie!

Do you prefer them in actual practice to more directed campaigns, or vis versa?

I don't run directed campaigns because I have such a hard time prepping plotlines. I do hope to run The Great Pendragon Campaign at some point, though I have a feeling it will be used more as a framework for world events rather than a direct plotline. I also recently got a copy of Masks Of Nyarlathotep and am interested in possibly running it because I don't have much experience running horror and long form mystery games. I do worry about how to keep it "on track" if I do run it and the players go off on a tangent, so we will see if I ever do take the plunge.

Is your opinion different as a player vs as a GM?

I am okay with being a player in a directed campaign because I have much less experience as a player and to be honest, I am reluctant to "step on toes" of the other players. So if the group wants to follow the GMs prepped plotline, then I go along with it. If the other players are proactive, then I drop into a sidekick role and try to assist as best I can. Occasionally I will take the initiative to pursue something easily accomplishable so as to not hold the spotlight for too long, but it's not my normal mode as a player.

 

[Tonguez]

You said they were all hurt by the Usurper but do the PCS have a list of character goals and drives? Do pursuing those goals have mechanical effect?

If you have that list then you just put that in front of them, add a challenge that takes it away from them and see how they respond

 

[Reynard]

You said they were all hurt by the Usurper but do the PCS have a list of character goals and drives? Do pursuing those goals have mechanical effect?

If you have that list then you just put that in front of them, add a challenge that takes it away from them and see how they respond

That is one way to do it, but player motivations are their responsibility.

For example, one of the PCs is the last survivor of their monastery, which was wiped out by the Usurper. That player has a list of targets, from the Usurper down to one of the privates who carried the banner during the assault, who they will kill -- torturing each up the chain as necessary to find the next target. So that comes up sometimes in play, because that player is driving their own story in that direction.

 

[zakael19]

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.

This tends to work best in my experience when there's something pressing back that focuses the players; or they have some sort of active set of objectives they can work towards, or ideally both.

Blades in the Dark does this via the Crew playbook's set of improvements, the initial set of gangs that you've created good and bad relationships with so you know who is going to make trouble for you, and then escalate from there. Stonetop does this by presenting Steading Improvements and the like which are actionable goals a player can go "I want to pursue this thing" while the GM creates Threats that imperil the town or area.

4e's Neverwinter Campaign Setting bakes explicit goals into each background - the Noble wants to make allies, gain proof they're a legitimate contender for the throne, etc. There's always a core set of "what am I/we doing here" for each person to fall back on and grab as a "I want to keep working towards this" in any case where the next step isn't clear.

Then as teh GM, I just create complicating circumstances that get in the way of the goal and target the players, or actively suggest next steps. "Ok, so we did X last time, you know that Y and Z are going to happen. Did you want to try A, maybe B? Some combination....?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

You said they were all hurt by the Usurper but do the PCS have a list of character goals and drives? Do pursuing those goals have mechanical effect?

If you have that list then you just put that in front of them, add a challenge that takes it away from them and see how they respond

Why would the act of pursuing goals have a mechanical effect? What kind of effect would you expect it to have?