When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that the thing you did here--presenting a situation--is perfectly compatible with player-driven experiences?

It sounds almost identical to a Front in Dungeon World. You know what the situation at hand is, and how it can go from bad to worse to awful to worst...if the PCs do nothing about it. That doesn't mean their participation is irrelevant.

Is there a more strident or specific meaning of "player-driven adventure" that I'm missing? I have not read most of the thread, so if there is clarification at some point in the middle I can go looking for it myself.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that the thing you did here--presenting a situation--is perfectly compatible with player-driven experiences?

It sounds almost identical to a Front in Dungeon World. You know what the situation at hand is, and how it can go from bad to worse to awful to worst...if the PCs do nothing about it. That doesn't mean their participation is irrelevant.

Is there a more strident or specific meaning of "player-driven adventure" that I'm missing? I have not read most of the thread, so if there is clarification at some point in the middle I can go looking for it myself.

I did clarify a little: I was just hoping for a more proactive rather than reactive party. For the most part, I have had to put stuff directly in front of them, as opposed to them deciding what to do once many options are laid out. I also clarified that it isn't really a big deal and we are having fun, just that I had unmet expectations (which we all know are the source of all disappointment).

 

[Starfox]

I wonder what the average session life of a BitD campaign is.

I am running two campaigns at the moment, one passed 30 sessions recently, the other one passed 20 sessions.

But like many other games, the advancement rate in Blades in the Dark is quite fast. This is good starting out, but my 30-session game is near to advancing out of the golden zone.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then how is it different from any D&D campaign run by a decent or good DM?

Some ways have been discussed but the other part of this is how to become a decent or good DM; the rules and DM procedures model what a good DM actually does rather than some abstracts like Chapter 2: Building a Multiverse.

A decent ten year D&D DM is likely to e.g. keep only one eye on the monster statblocks because they know what they do and don't have to look up the spells because they know them. And they are likely to keep a keen eye on the on the fly world building and PC interactions.

On the other hand a talented three week DM is likely to be clinging tightly to the rulebooks, spending a lot of time preparing every spell and option and NPC or clinging even more tightly to the adventure path. They aren't a decent DM yet and are doing what the book tells them. They get to decent in part when they learn to ignore what the books say

By contrast a talented three week PbtA MC barely has statblocks to worry about, isn't looking up spells, and is focusing on on the fly world building and PC interactions because that is what the rulebook tells them to do. They look a lot more like the decent ten year DM than the three week DM does

Even where it is "doing what a decent or good DM does" it cuts years off the self taught learning process to get there. And that on its own is a good thing.

 

[VHawkwinter]

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?

In my experience most players don't set goals and doggedly pursue them, they mostly react to what happens around them. Occasionally one is motivated and the rest go along. When I am a player I usually work with the GM during chargen to come up with my campaign-long goal, and make sure it will work, and then I pursue that. But I am, in all things, an outlier.

Anyway: My general plan for player-driven adventure is to throw lots of stuff at them that's happening, while giving them limited time and ability to intervene and how, and then letting them choose /what/ they react to. Sometimes that turns into them setting and pursuing their own goals, but at the very least, they're often deciding who they cooperate with.

I usually try to throw 4-6 major factions at them with conflicting goals, plus side quests, temporary alliances, or sometimes an external threat that makes them temporarily band together.

But fundamentally I still operate on the assumption the players in my player-driven adventure will generally be reactive not proactive.

 

[djotaku]

I remember reading this when it first was written, but in my quick perusal, it looks like I didn't make a reply back then.

Throwing in my 2 cents: if you look at pretty much any movie or book (or even the lives of most humans) - most people most of the time are reacting. The hobbits don't want to adventure - they're forced to adventure. Luke wants to leave tattoine, but what is he actually doing about it other than whining to his aunt and uncle? It's the war coming to his planet that forces his hand. Even adventurers - they aren't just doing w/e. They find a job on a job board or they are hired by an organization or something like that.

So I don't think that player-driven makes sense in the most absolute definition of the term. If you're level 1 - why do you want to leave the safety of your home/village? If you're level 12 - why not just sit on your hoard of gold and buy some small town? Or hire smaller level adventurers to do the work for you? The world still needs to be in upheaval or there need to be compelling jobs on the job boards or the king needs to hire the players. I think where "player-driven" actually makes sense is to say that your campaign is not linear/on-rails. The world is broken in 3 different ways and the players get to choose which one they listen to. IN FACT, Kobold Press' Monster Vault 2 has this concept called Monster Bundles. It's genius and I want to see it ported to more TTRPGs (so that the companies come up with the lists instead of me)

So here's how the Monster bundles work. There's a theme. The book has the following examples: Age of Giants, Arch-Devil's Retribution, Confrontation of Titans, Cult of Rot, and 12 more. Each bundle has monsters that go together and there's a frame story around what they are doing. Then it says, if your group is Tier 1 when you stumble into this plot - these are the enemies you face. If you're Tier 2, THESE are the enemies you face. Up to Tier 4. But here's where things get AWESOME. As the GM you pick 3 bundles. The players can only deal with one at a time. So if they pick bundle A, bundles B and C proceed to their Tier 2 plots. (it's a living world! You didn't deal with some threats so now they're bigger!!). You repeat that again - the players can deal with B or C. C goes to the Tier 3 plot. So there are consequences to their choices. It's player driven, but there's always some bad guys doing bad guy stuff to motivate them to action.

 

[Reynard]

So here's how the Monster bundles work. There's a theme. The book has the following examples: Age of Giants, Arch-Devil's Retribution, Confrontation of Titans, Cult of Rot, and 12 more. Each bundle has monsters that go together and there's a frame story around what they are doing. Then it says, if your group is Tier 1 when you stumble into this plot - these are the enemies you face. If you're Tier 2, THESE are the enemies you face. Up to Tier 4. But here's where things get AWESOME. As the GM you pick 3 bundles. The players can only deal with one at a time. So if they pick bundle A, bundles B and C proceed to their Tier 2 plots. (it's a living world! You didn't deal with some threats so now they're bigger!!). You repeat that again - the players can deal with B or C. C goes to the Tier 3 plot. So there are consequences to their choices. It's player driven, but there's always some bad guys doing bad guy stuff to motivate them to action.

Interesting. I own the Monster Vault but don't recall reading that section (i mostly just use the monsters in place of whatever boring versions are in the MM).

 

[djotaku]

Interesting. I own the Monster Vault but don't recall reading that section (i mostly just use the monsters in place of whatever boring versions are in the MM).

It's in Monster Vault 2 - I think it came out last year, but I was a Kickstarter backer so I've lost track of when it came out vs when I backed it and so forth. If you like the first one, which is mostly just SRD monsters redone for Tales of the Valiant, I think you'll really like the creativity on display in this second bestiary. If I can put a link to my own review: