When you start a new game...

[Lord Pendragon]

I have a great epic conflict in mind, and a general idea of how that conflict will come to pass. But no concrete details, no events set in stone.

Then I brainstorm several different plotlines that tie in to specific PCs and their goals, and the players and their goals.

I spend the campaign trying to come up with adventures that are:

1. Interesting. First and foremost I want each adventure to be satisfying in and of itself.

2. Relevent to the PCs. I try to weave in the plotlines I brainstormed above, giving the PCs/players opportunity to develop personal long-term storylines.

3. Relevent to the Grand Plot. Lastly, I try to weave in the overarching plot, giving the entire campaign some shape and interest. This is my last goal, because it's the most malleable. Depending on what the players are doing and how the game is going, I can and will change it to better suit what's happening in the game.

 

[S'mon]

I generally break it into mini-campaigns of about 5 levels at a time, so players aren't locked into doing the same thing with their PCs for 15 or 20 levels, and we can see what suits the group & adjust accordingly. Eg I'm currently running Lost City of Barakus, which is likely to take the PCs from 1st to ca 6th-7th level, after that I have some ideas but I want to see what works with this group & where their interest lies, and use stuff that fits with their PC goals. I don't think 20-level adventure paths that bear no relation to PC goals are a good idea.

 

[Evilhalfling]

My style evolves.
for a long time I would write great longterm stories which would not finish, instead wandering around based on PC choices and whatever I thought would be fun to do next.
So I tried running games with a begining middle and end. The first didin't, the second fell apart just before the final climax. The last worked perfectly, with a heroic, legendary ending. The problem with that is that it ended. I was exausted with bringing that story to a conclusion, and needed a break. So now my goal is to return to more player driven game, I have a sort of midterm climax, with a Dragon attacking the PC's home town, with the other people either being unable or unwilling to attack a dragon. I figure will build the rest of the campaign out of the choices the players make along the way.

Last week was the first session and it was so free form that there was only one set peice, the intro of BoB the Dretch spy. (see sig) Needless to say dretches don't make good spies. I had hopes he would be reacurring but he was manhandled, manacled, squeezed for info and stabbed to death with cold iron arrows. I will miss his stupied grin, and funny way of talking.

It is hard to plan ahead with this sort of game, and I will hopefully come up with some longer plotline but I cant see it at the moment.

 

[fusangite]

Ever since I gave up using published material in 1990, my campaigns have had a definite end planned out. For me, world=story so because of that, implicit in every world I create is the world-changing victory condition for the campaign. Now the stuff between the start and that point: there, I try for as much free will as possible.

 

[Cor Azer]

Depends on the campaign.

My Pbem game started out with literally nothing more than a name of a kingdom and the name of the campaign. Everything else was fleshed out from character backgrounds and in-game events. I still do a lot of foreshadowing, but it's generally of a more vague nature, because I often don't know what the actual foreshadowed event will be.

My face-to-face game had large plot arcs considered, but the details aren't set until the players open the door. Still, it makes it a bit easier to foreshadow (some of the events just now coming to fruition were quite accurately foreshadowed in the first couple of sessions after more than two years of gaming)

I think I prefer the second method, but that's mainly because I really enjoy mysteries and foreshadowing.

 

[DragonLancer]

Do you have a long-term campaign planned out with a definate start and end, or do you take it one adventure at a time and then tie those adventures together after the fact or as needed?

Or something in-between or totally different?

I plan it out in rough from beginning to end and then modify that based on player action and inaction. When it comes down to the villains, I have a rough idea of what their stats look like but I don't write them up until it looks like the party are going to either run into them or go hunting for them.

 

[MonsterMash]

I don't have a long term overall campaign arc as such, but there are lots of various things going on around the PCs and most NPCs have their own agendas, which can create threads which interweave to create something - I hate trying to railroad PCs as they never do what you'd expect them to anyway, and it doesn't necessarily fit with my view of gaming.

 

[Graybeard]

I have several plots/events planned from the start that will or will not happen depending on what the PC's do. I start with a small basic adventure to get the game rolling that may or may not have to do with the overall plot. It usually has nothing to do with the rest of the world but sometimes it does. For example, if they rescue someone in the first adventure, that person may end up working either with, or against the PC"s. I like to have it so their actions have some effect on the rest of the world, no matter how small. Kind of like the Quantum Leap TV show where the main character kept wanting to do big things and he is told that the little things he does helps more than he realizes.

Most of the actions of the PC's during the game will affect something or someone in the world. Once in awhile there will be an adventure that has no significant affect at all.

I have found that these are the types of campaigns that my players like best.

Chuck