you're starting a new campaign: defining story arc or go with the flow?

[GlassJaw]

Just wanted to take an informal poll: when starting a new campaign, regardless of the setting or ruleset your are using, do you prefer to base your campaign on one story-arc that will develop throughout the course of the campaign or just tie a series of unrelated adventurers together and let the campaign develop on its own?

To take it one step further, does the campaign style, setting, or ruleset you use determine the scope of the adventures or story arc?

 

[Glyfair]

Just wanted to take an informal poll: when starting a new campaign, regardless of the setting or ruleset your are using, do you prefer to base your campaign on one story-arc that will develop throughout the course of the campaign or just tie a series of unrelated adventurers together and let the campaign develop on its own?

Neither? Both?

I prefer to have at least two plots weaving throughout the campaign. One might be more central than the other. At times the campaign will wander on its own and return to the plot or plots.

For example, to modify a classic sequence:

The Giants have been active in attacking border areas of the kingdom.
The Drow have taken interest in the surface for the first time in ages.

The campaign might start like the GDQ series. However, when the PCs get back to the surface they'll find they still have to deal with giant issues (which were assisted by the drow, not driven by them). They might end with diversions throughout the campaign (say from a side plane trip while in the Abyss).

 

[SpiderMonkey]

I prefer to have one over-arching storyline (metaplot?) for my campaigns with the occassional unrelated diversion. Ideally, what happens is that each of the players not only has a hook, but develops their own based on their actions and interactions with the PCs.

 

[wedgeski]

I always have a metaplot that touches on the characters no matter what they do. Sometimes the metaplot is absolutely core to the campaign (the reason for their adventures, defining the goals of the campaign) while other times it kind of waves at them from the background while they steadfastly ignore it. Either way is cool, but in my experience there's nothing that lends depth to a campaign more than the notion that someone bad is trying to do something terrible and the PC's can stop him (or her) if they choose.

 

[Insight]

Since I have less time to prep than I used to, I tend to "go with the flow" now, especially for a D&D game. Some of this depends on the setting as well; if I am using a published setting, I am more likely to come up with a specific plot, but if I am working with my own creation, I am more likely to be spontaneous. I guess it all depends on how much lead time I have, which usually isn't much these days.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I almost always have some kind of long storyline going, though early on(well, and later) it can look like a bunch of non-connected adventures if a piece here or there is missed.

 

[Phlebas]

My tried and tested method -

one main 'campaign' plot (v rough) & each character gets their own mini-plot

characters plots start entwining with main plot in ways which keeps things moving forward - recently i've stopped even attempting to determine the order and just thrown out half a dozen hooks to see where the party go next.

Side note: - one occasion at university, I ended up abandoning the main plot completely as the party decided they wanted to recover the swashbucklers castle from the evil pretender (swashbucklers backstory) rather than solve the mystery of the lost imperial knights. The climatic battle happened on the last RP'ing day of the uni year sitting on the verge outside the Union bar after it closed, with a tied initiative mutual critical (2nd Ed rules, 2 simultaneous 20's and high % rolls) that decapitated the BBEG as he impaled the Swashbuckler. Happy days.....

 

[Crothian]

A little bit of both really. I have a defined story arc in place if the players want to go that way but if they want something else that is fine too.

 

[el-remmen]

I usually start with a campaign 'concept' - and then work out the arcs based on what the players make from the guidelines I provide.

For example my "Second Son of a Second Son" campaign, has the basic premise: "You are all young nobles of low birth rank want to prove yourselves and make a place for yourselves in the complex politics of the Magocracy of Thricia"

And then I create a kind of flowchart of adventures I want to run, looking for themes that work together, both among the adventures and the PC background info - and then build from there, extrapolating on the goals and plans of the major NPCs.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Just wanted to take an informal poll: when starting a new campaign, regardless of the setting or ruleset your are using, do you prefer to base your campaign on one story-arc that will develop throughout the course of the campaign or just tie a series of unrelated adventurers together and let the campaign develop on its own?

To take it one step further, does the campaign style, setting, or ruleset you use determine the scope of the adventures or story arc?

I've done both, Glassjaw. Both are very fun, but require different styles of prep. work and the latter usually requires a lot more improvisation. So, yes, style has a lot to do with it, IMO. It depends on what you are most comfortable with.

If you run a single story arc, it's good to have a few subplots to break up the flow so your players don't get burnt out on the main story/villain/quest. This kind of campaign usually means that you do most of your prep work prior to it starting. It also means a bit less prep work during the actual running of the campaign since all of your material is pretty much set up already. You may have to improvise here and there, but not as much as the other type of campaign (see below).

Running a campaign with a lot of interconnected, yet unrelated adventures requires less work before it kicks off aside from picking out some modules or homebrewed adventures you'd like to run and reading up on them. But it means there's going to be a lot of thinking on your feet as the players go this direciton or the other. You have to have a few encounters, short adventures or entirely new adventures ready to drop into the game as a contingency plan for sudden deviations your players make from the scheduled adventure and you may have to find random NPCs to drop in to the game to fill in gaps. These are a lot of fun since it's pretty free form, but be prepared for a lot of prep work in between games as you try to catch up with and anticipate your players' actions.