In a post last month on attacks of opportunity, Phil proposed having the players decide where the campaign begins, and what it’s about.
That’s a neat idea. If you used it, what would you have to change about your approach to GMing?
The basic idea is this: you lay down the map for your setting, and the players decide where they want the campaign to take place. Then you throw some adventure/campaign hooks out for discussion, and they pick the one that sounds the most interesting to them.
So there are two physical elements here, as well as one metagame element: a map of the setting, and an assortment of pre-written adventure hooks (the physical elements); plus a willingness to roll with the players’ collective decision (the metagame element).
The Map: Most published settings come with one or more maps, and most homebrewers map their worlds — this one shouldn’t be a problem. But which map do you use? The Forgotten Realms setting (D&D), for example, has large-scale world maps that cover vast swaths of Faerûn, as well as more detailed regional maps in each supplement. I think allowing for the widest range of choices possible — using the world maps, in other words — is more in the spirit of this idea, but for one reason or another you might prefer to narrow things down a bit initially.
If you’ve got the luxury of having world and regional maps, and you happen to have the regional map for the area that the players choose, then you could do a second round and pick the exact spot where the PCs start out. (And if you’re playing a real-world game, whether modern or historical, the sky’s the limit as far as map resources go!)
The Adventure Hooks: Do you need to write X number of hooks for every region on the map? Not really, no. Published settings tend to include adventure hooks, often keyed to different regions (as Phil pointed out in his post) — if yours does this, you’re good to go. There are also plenty of products out there that list setting-neutral hooks (like the Seeds line from Expeditious Retreat Press), and many games come with a list of these built-in.
Should you pick a few likely hooks before the players decide on a region? This sounds like a good idea, at least for most groups. In the spirit of the “map to campaign” idea, though, you could also leave this wide open — even to the point of asking the players what they’d like the campaign to involve, with no pre-written hooks in mind at all.
Rolling With It: Unlike the “traditional” approach, where the GM has a campaign in mind and the players don’t necessarily have a whole lot of input at the outset, this idea revolves around player choice. So while you won’t have creative control over the framework for the campaign, you’ll also have a group of players that’s guaranteed to be interested in the game — because they came up with it! You’ll also have a group of characters that are built with this campaign in mind, and that have connections to the starting region and to each other (which is one of the biggest benefits of this approach).
On the micro level, you’ll need to be able to suggest or not suggest hooks based on the area that the players choose on the map (or tweak the hooks you had in mind). On the macro level, you’ll need to look at the campaign as a blank slate — which could be pretty scary, depending on what you’re used to doing.
Overall, I think this is a nifty idea, and I’d like to give it a shot sometime. Have you tried this approach, or a similar one? Did I cover the basics as far as things to keep in mind, or did I leave something out?
(This post also ties into two previous topics on TT: “Collaborative PC Creation” and “More Fun, Less Work.” If the “map to campaign” approach sounds interesting, you might want to check out those two posts as well.)
I used this idea to a limited extent with my current campaign. I talked to the players about where they wanted to start. Actually, with some of the players, I even showed them several campaign settings and stuff.
I’m not sure if their input really contributed much, but even if you sort of lead off with your ideas, you can get some buy in from the players.
Frank
“So while you won’t have creative control over the framework for the campaign, you’ll also have a group of players that’s guaranteed to be interested in the game — because they came up with it!”
Martin, I know what you mean, but as written that statement is not strictly true. There are plenty of players that, when put in that situation, would freeze worse than a deer in the headlights. What they come up with will *not* interest them as much as what I come up with, because I have a lot more practice/motivation for coming up with something interesting. 😀
Of course there are many ways to get player input into the course of the campaign. To the extent that one can find a way that works with his players, what you said is definitely true.
I bring this up because mainly what your article talks about is player provided details. Most of my players are “big picture” oriented, or maybe detail-oriented with their characters only. They certainly want some say in the major themes and ideas of the campaign, but could care less about the details until we start. And then they only care about details as they relate to play or their characters–not controlling where the campaign goes.
“There are plenty of players that, when put in that situation, would freeze worse than a deer in the headlights.”
How long does this continue?
If your players expect it, I would think that they’d start coming to the table having thought of responses to that kind of question already. It requires some de-programming from the “audience mode” that, like, module-based D&D (haven’t you ever said to yourself, “WTF is my guy doing hunting for treasure? That’s not like him!”?) teaches.
While I think there are many players who could adapt to more player control, I think there are others who really just aren’t interested in that level of input. I have two learning disabled players, and I just see almost no creative input from one of them. Of course the other was the one who actually gave the most input on where to start the current campaign, and actually the one who gives the least creative input in general gave input also. But it took a lot of prompting on my part to get input out of them.
I really wonder how much we can blame on the way D&D works, or the fact that TV teaches people to sit and passively absorb entertainment, and how much is really just human nature.
Frank
Most players tend to focus, rightfully so, on their characters, not campaign creation. Why? Because the GM is so busy that the one area they can’t afford to spend any time is on character focus, beyond integrating them (the characters) into the game. Who else is going to focus on the characters?
Having the players help with the campaign creation sounds great on paper, but rarely works, in my experience. Most players want to be divested of that responsibility so they can “play.”
If I was tasked to help in the creation of a game, I’m sure in no time that I’d rather be running it!
Shreyas, half my players have only gamed with me, and I never programmed them. 😀 I gave them as much leeway as they wanted. They are simply not detail oriented on these kinds of questions. If they expect me to run the game that way, they will come to the table shell-shocked instead of waiting for me to shine the beams into their eyes first. 😀 (A couple of my guys could handle it, but it wouldn’t be their preference.)
Note also that my guys are very much not in “audience” mode. I run very open ended campaigns where the NPCs do their things and the players do whatever they want. But the players make their choices within the confines of their characters knowledge, abilities, and motivations. (I saw the topic on the Forge about character centric RPGs. Suffice it to say that I and my players have views about the nature of the world that make character centric RPGs our best choice.)
There is a school of thought concerning creativity that “limits are freeing”. Too much choice leads to paralysis. Saying, “Do something!” is actually less freeing than saying, “On the road to X you witness Y. What do you do?” Limit choices, and suddenly people get awfully creative. My group subscribes to this theory, as it seems to fit us pretty well.
Interestingly enough, asking someone to pick a spot on a map can be freeing or paralyzing–depending on the person. For some people, you are effectively saying, “imagine an interesting start to the campaign and pick a spot on this map that corresponds to it.” For others, you are effectively saying, “pick a spot on this map, with no context from me.” That is, the people that handle open-ended requests to “Do Something!” (with implied requirements of fun, interesting, appropriate) are the ones who immediately start make decisions that limit their actual choices.
Perhaps this relates to peoples’ view of how story comes about. We are very much in the camp that “the story” is what happened in the game, not something we imposed. Related, my players are the type would rather express their creativity in how they play a character than how they design/conceive of one.
Is there any other way to run campaigns? ;P
I’ve always run character-centric campaigns and have never been very fond of the whole over-arching meta-plots designed by DMs to couch the PCs in the DM’s own story, usually where the story over shadows the characters to some degree. I much prefer the character-based campaigns with elements of both PC and DM input (preferably a good 50/50 mix) that the DM weaves in a cooperative and collaborative story-telling process.
If a DM wishes to tell a story so badly, I usually suggest that they go write a short-story or a novel. DMing in general is not so much about “telling” a story so much as creating a story with a group of people. All of my best player/DM experiences have been where the DM weaves a story using setting events/adventures (created by DM) and character-specific adventures/concepts (created by PCs) to create a campaign entirely unique to the player group involved.
(I’m back from my trip now. :))
(CJ) Martin, I know what you mean, but as written that statement is not strictly true. There are plenty of players that, when put in that situation, would freeze worse than a deer in the headlights.
True enough. I think the general guidelines of “try it and see, and be ready to shelve it if no one bites” and “if this sounds like a poor choice for your group, don’t do it” apply to most of the idea- and theory-type posts here.
The “map to campaign” idea touches on one of the core concepts of many RPGs, though (as many of the comments here have pointed out) — that player creativity is by default limited to their PCs, and the actions of their PCs.
That’s not the only mode by any means, and I sometimes wish that the big fish in the mainstream industry — like D&D — would provide some advice and support for different input mixes than the “standard.”
I wanted to start a Forgotten Realms campaign, but I didn’t know where to start it. I photocopied the map, and tossed a dart.
Lucky enough for me, the players were all cool with it. I like to think of my role as the DM as the stage setter – I provide the playing field for the characters to get involved in.
What I have done to get the players involved in campaign creation is offer a XP reward (varying depending on the size & detail of the contribution) if they have something they want to contribute.
I’ve had mixed results with awarding bonus XP myself, Lilith, but for some groups it can be a very good way to encourage player buy-in.
I like the dart idea. 😉