Have you ever designed a long, intricate campaign only to have it fall apart before it ever came close to seeing fruition? I know, it’s a rhetorical question. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to end a campaign far short of where I’d planned to end it. It can be frustrating to leave plot threads dangling, especially if you’d put a lot of work into it.
I was reminded of this frustration with my current campaign, where I’ve specifically outlined my main plot points to be vague and malleable to suit whatever direction my players go and my end point is easy enough to move forward if we have to end early. Not only has this taken a big weight off my shoulders, but it’s given me the freedom to change things up as I go.
I’d love to share my campaign with you, but some of my players read this site (imagine that!), so instead I’m going to provide a similar example. I’ll begin this example the same way that my campaign started, with a particular concept.
For the example, the concept is the players being a group of low-powered superheroes helping bystanders and being part of a resistance group in a city under the control of alien invaders. I have visions of a war-torn city where everyone’s movements are monitored and ‘trouble-makers’ are arrested and imprisoned. The enemy is strong, and the world’s best heroes have already been incapacitated or stuck fighting elsewhere, leaving the city in the hands of the PC heroes.
At this point, I don’t even need to define the nature of the enemy beyond broad strokes, since I have to get the PCs to that point. I decide that the aliens want to soften resistance first, so they help local supervillains make trouble and slowly diminish Earth’s defences, one major superhero at a time. The aliens are also infiltrating governments to aid in the invasion. I also know that, at some point, the PCs will be able to mount an offensive to defeat the invaders.
So, in broad strokes, I have four major arcs: the Infiltration, the Attack, the Occupation, and the Final Battle. I also have a general idea of what power level the PCs should be at when they start each arc, but this is only a guide. Each arc can actually take as long or be as short as I need them to be.
For example, in the beginning, the PCs are dealing with empowered supervillains and changes in government (perhaps the aliens decide to push an international “superbeing registration act” in order to gather intel on all the known superpowered characters in the world – they start manipulating votes to ensure the right leaders are in power). If my players really enjoy this arc, then I can string it out as long as I like. If they don’t, then it’s easy enough to move up the invasion timetable.
Laying out the arcs in this way also gives me outs if the campaign has to end quickly. Perhaps the PCs were able to stop the invasion once the aliens realized they were discovered, or maybe the invasion itself is unsuccessful thanks to the PCs.
Keeping things fluid also enables me to shrink an arc that turns out to be un-fun for the players. This example started with me wanting to put the PCs through an occupation. If I get the feeling that my players aren’t enjoying this, then it’s easy enough to get the tools they need in their hands (powerful allies, an opportunity to free a stronger hero, an obvious alien weakness) to jump right to the Final Battle.
Another benefit in keeping arcs vague is that I get to be creative. I can introduce new NPCs and plot elements on a whim, since I know where I’m going but I haven’t completely mapped out how to get there. This enables me to remain creative and work with my players, riffing off what they are enjoying. Maybe they really get attached to an NPC that I hadn’t planned to do much with, or they come up with a cunning plan that liberates their city a little early, requiring the aliens to try and retake it.
So how about you? How do you plot your campaigns? Do you keep it fast and loose or are you a heavy plotter? Have you ever been really surprised at a direction your campaign went? Did it end up better (or worse) than you’d expected?
I have had many a fullblooded campaign fall victim to circumstance. The inherent problem of a massive world filled with intrigue is that even the smallest of sabbaticals can derail player memories of lore, character details, plot threads.
I recently started a new campaign where I had my players use Dawn of Worlds to create the geography and Microscope to create the history. Now the lore and shape of the world is embedded in their minds, and I run mini-campaigns in that world that tie into a larger, longer storyline. It’s been working so far because occasionally they’ll hear about the exploits of their previous characters as legend, or history, or as exposition when they enter a part of the world they’ve explored before as previous characters.
A couple of these mini-campaigns ended abruptly, but itjsut gives me more seed to sow as I start a new campaign and use the yet-untold exploits of their previous characters as lore for their new campaign.
Good example, Walt. I usually plan my campaigns the same way, identifying an epic, climactic arc along with a few successive arcs that build to it. I keep the details of the later arcs relatively vague, as they depend enormously on what the PCs do in the earlier arcs.
Per Swanthony’s remark about players missing or forgetting critical elements of epic storylines: When I start a longterm game I outline for the players the narrative arc I expect to tell as part of the story. I get their buy-in on it from the start– and often incorporate a few good ideas they offer. Their awareness and sense of ownership keeps them focused on game elements that advance the longterm plot. The players often tell me when they think the story is going too far off on a tangent instead of progressing toward the next arc!
Interesting idea! I never considered letting the players in on the brushwork for the campaign. How much detail do you go into?
My first games with planned story arcs were very loosely outlined and had the benefit of dovetailing with the existing story of a licensed property (Babylon 5). I was able to get the whole thing to come off, despite losing one on the main players, mostly because I was filling in the interstices of the show’s story.
I had a tighter storyline for our Battlestar Galactica game (a “second fleet” idea) that fell apart with the gaming group. It had a beginning and planned ending, but the course from A-Z was very loosely defined with a few specific action pieces I wanted to happen.
The second pass at the BSG game was much more tightly plotted, with several waypoints connected by whatever the players were doing. Build up to the attacks, Kobol, fighting “the Blaze” (mentioned in the cut scenes for the Kobol episodes), and finding Earth. It’s evolved on it’s own and I’ve expanded on these points. It’s survived losing half the group, various people coming in and out, and even a few periods of downtime.
Very interesting article on a topic that is of great interest to me personally. I think it gets at the heart of what I see as a major evolution in tabletop RPG approaches with regard to the role of the GM.
I have been tinkering with a method (see Fantasy Chimera at http://www.ojogames.com) in which at the beginning of a campaign, everyone at the table contributes to the initial world building by adding in a sentence or two that relates to the basic premise of the setting. Like, “Lovecraftian antagonits destroying civilization”, or “Aquatic Amazonians conquering nations through dire-crab domestication” for example.
As GM, I then synthesize these elements into a setting in which everybody can see facets that they contributed. The result of this approach is a campaign world that has elements from everyone at the table, but takes on a life of its own in a way that no one could have envisioned originally. Think of it like making a stew, but with one ingredient from each person – by the time you simmer, season, and serve it up, you have something fresh and unexpected that is more than the sum of its parts!
In general, campaigns started off in this manner have a LOT of longevity, simply due to buy-in and ownership for all involved. Because they are brewed up right at the tabletop with everyone present, the burden of exposition is also a lot lighter on the GM, and players generally have a better situational awareness compared to conventional campaign prep.