Tips on starting a new Campaign

[spooniermist]

Hello folks!

I have binged on RQ's content over the last week and absolutely love it.

I GM a game with a few friends once every fortnight and we'll be starting our next campaign this week. Thing is, I'm not really sure how to plan or build my campaign.

This will be the second campaign I've run, and the first one wasn't too bad. I decided that it would be best if I had a villain (a gang), some crime (kidnapping magic users), and a setting (gigantic mega-city, think Megacity One from Judge Dredd), and ran it as a more open-world "here's the crime now go bring the guilty to justice." However, my players said they felt it was too open to begin with.

So, people of the RQ forums, how do you plan a campaign? Anything that you keep in mind for starting off, or anything that you always try and include? I'm thinking that this campaign is going to start more rail-roaded (maybe just for the first session) and then gradually broaden the scope.

[theoverlord]

I would say that it depends on the people that you have, I would talk to everyone that is playing, find out what they like and dislike and attempt to incorporate stuff that they into the campaign as well, for outside of the main story line.
For the more main parts of the story, I would do it exactly as you describe, more rail-roadish at the start, before opening up properly
Finally, don't be afraid to improvise stuff on the fly, I had a great GM who would allow us to do anything as long as it would make sense mechanically, if it is a quite rigid story line people can get quite bored of your GM-ing.
Also make sure you have a good knowledge of the rules, people don't like to wait a long time between turns.
I hope this helps you, even though I haven't GM-ed a lot myself.

[Brave Sir Robin]

Talking to the players, and finding out what everyone wants is definitely the best piece of advice I can give. I think your plan of starting off pretty railroaded and gradually opening things up is a good idea - it lets you adjust as you go along and focus on the bits that people are interested in as you all get to explore the game world.

[Oneiros]

Definitely concur with what the others have said. Even experienced groups can be a bit overwhelmed when presented with a sandbox and asked "what do you want to do?", particularly if it's a homebrew setting that they're not familiar with/know much of the backstory about.

How experienced are your group with RP in general, because that will often determine how much in the way of guidance they may need in navigating the world as well. Start them off on a story/quest/hook that you have discussed with them and know will get their attention (always give them/present them with a good reason to do things - a remember, this is not a computer game, a good deed can be its own reward too), then show them, either explicitly (an NPC asks them to do something afterwards) or incidentally (they spot a noticeboard, come across a newspaper article on a table or overhear a conversation in an alley), other things that they might want to get involved with as the campaign progresses.

[Alex Newall]

I would say that when running sandbox there are three tricks:
1) after each session ask your players what their plans are for next session. It might feel like cheating but it's not. It'll help you prep.
2) Prep set pieces that can go off whenever. Rather than get wrapped up in linear stories. Think story modules rather than a linear tale. That way you can swap them in and out when you need.
3) really understand your world. You will be improvising a LOT when sandboxing, which is fine, but it is always nice when stuff happens in the story world even if the player characters didn't "activate" the event by being there. Really helps them feel more like they are part of a world rather than its defining feature. When you know the broader cultures of your world it makes the improvising of NPCs and specific scenarios much easier and more natural seeming.

[spooniermist]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback, folks!

It seems like the general consensus is to start railroady and then open up slowly, which works for me!

[Source] theoverlord said:

...I had a great GM who would allow us to do anything as long as it would make sense mechanically, if it is a quite rigid story line people can get quite bored of your GM-ing...

I think this might have been a big part of my problem, my storyline was too linear and my setting too open! I was sorta running it as 6-7 different events, but the path to the events was undefined. Didn't really think about it at the time of designing it, but it sounds pretty bad (but wasn't as bad as all that!). Thanks!

[Source] Oneiros said:

How experienced are your group with RP in general, because that will often determine how much in the way of guidance they may need in navigating the world as well. Start them off on a story/quest/hook that you have discussed with them and know will get their attention

All four of us have exactly 0 experience in RP before this. We've started off playing it less of an RPG and more a puzzle game, but RP elements have crept in more and more until by the end of the first campaign we all had distinct personalities and relationships. It was pretty cool to see unfold, to be honest. 

[Source] Alex Newall said:

I would say that when running sandbox there are three tricks:
1) after each session ask your players what their plans are for next session. It might feel like cheating but it's not. It'll help you prep.
2) Prep set pieces that can go off whenever. Rather than get wrapped up in linear stories. Think story modules rather than a linear tale. That way you can swap them in and out when you need.
3) really understand your world. You will be improvising a LOT when sandboxing, which is fine, but it is always nice when stuff happens in the story world even if the player characters didn't "activate" the event by being there. Really helps them feel more like they are part of a world rather than its defining feature. When you know the broader cultures of your world it makes the improvising of NPCs and specific scenarios much easier and more natural seeming.

1) That *does* feel like cheating, but it sounds like it might be useful, especially if it means that we have a smoother game. I'm not too worried about this, as they tend to spend ages discussing things before doing anything, which gives me time to plan. But this would also be a good way to make sure they're on track, or work out how to nudge them in the right direction.

2) Interesting... Do you mean like plot-critical stuff, or just general events? Is that how the Pathfinder game on RQ is structured, all just disjointed modules waiting for the PCs to link them together?

3) Funnily enough, in my mind the setting is both really well fleshed out and really sparse. I have 20 odd districts, but only actually define them when I need something, so if I need a religious region then I can just make it up. On the flip side, I'm using the Faction turn from Stars Without Number to have factions attacking each other without the player's involvement, so I know where factions are and what they're up to, but not really the setting. I'm hoping this will make it feel more like an evolving world, rather than a place that's waiting for the PCs to mess it up. They've already met a few of the larger gangs, and heard of the other ones without really being directly involved.

Thanks everyone for your comments so far! Really helpful!

[theoverlord]

we here have an approximate knowledge of many things, most of them to do with RPG's

[rainbowdeity]

Really like the idea of the evolving Factions, providing the setting with an element of independence from your players should help to flesh things out.

I agree with all the other advice given, I'd just add a couple of things.

1) If the players don't define a goal, define one for them - one of the problems you can find with sandbox games is that often the players just don't really know what their characters want in the long term. This is absolutely fine and a perfectly valid way to play, but in that case throw them into a situation which gives them a solid end point, however...

2) Don't get hung up on old ideas - Although it's useful to provide direction, don't try and force the players down it. Offer it to them, but if they then decide to do everything they can to avoid the consequences/effects of the situation you offered, great! Trying to avoid the plot is just as interesting as engaging with it. I've played in a couple of games where the GM has decided The Story They Are Going To Tell and kept trying to nudge players back to their idea of the game, which meant that the aspects of the game the players were actually interested in were allowed to atrophy until nobody involved got what they wanted out of your game.

3) Players have an imperfect view of the game. Only you know what you've planned and what's going on, so don't worry about getting everything perfect, just make sure it's delivered in an emotive and enthusiastic way. A lot of GMs will spend ages worrying about whether their game is good enough, whether that battle was perfectly balanced, whether their intrigue plot is consistent and compelling... by and large the players don't give a crap about that, or if they do, they don't have all the information so will draw their own conclusions. Many a game I've run or played in has felt like a complete disaster from the GM's perspective, but the players have had a great time.

4) You will fuck up, and that's fine. No one's perfect and GMing is bloody difficult. Sometimes you'll make a mistake or accidentally spoil a session for someone. It happens, learn from it and move on but don't let it knock your confidence.

5) Be reactive, but commit 100%. As mentioned above, make sure you react to the wishes of your players instead of plugging away at an idea which is now no longer appropriate, but once you do decide on a course of action, commit to it. Players will be able to sense if you don't believe in your own story, and that hesitance will be reflected in how they interact with you and the game. If you take control and say 'OK! Now this is happening!' More often than not players will jump right into the situation and get to work having fun (and if they don't then that idea was a non-starter, discard it and offer another one as if that was your plan all along).

6) Don't burn out. This is something Bryn and I have been talking about recently - it's very easy to ruin your fun if you keep GMing all the time. It can be a stressful job, as you shoulder most of the responsibility for the fun of the game. If you need to take a break, take a break. Either suspend the game or encourage one of the other players to give GMing a go. The worst thing you can do is try and slog through a game you no longer enjoy running, because no one will have any fun.

[rainbowdeity]

I realise that I managed to completely deviate from the original point of the thread, sorry... but I'll leave that up just in case someone finds it useful

[Doktor Payne]

These are good, comforting thoughts before I embark on my game. I've tried really hard to put in little details that I think are mostly only for my benefit while strewing little plot hooks for the players.

Most of those come from the players themselves talking to me about how their characters feel about the world around them (made much easier because my setting is pretty much an exact period of history - Spring 1381). They are building the world they'll enjoy playing in up for me.

One character is engaging a little less on that side of things - she just wants to roll dice and stab people up. But that's okay - I'm fairly certain I know how to coax her into the narrative.

In terms of planning I think my approach thus far is working:

Go for an easy to understand setting (the scale of sheer history happening in England in 1381 is easily understood if you read a few wiki articles).

Decide a style of game you'd like and think others would enjoy (I want a high chivalric backdrop, with the characters themselves cognisant of creating heroic narratives).

Speak to your players and really develop a feel for their character, and start to think of plot threads for them - possibly entwining them between players.

Put in YOUR detail, even if it's only for you and is never important to the players. You have to remain engaged with the narrative too.

And the best plan (for everything, ever) is if it stops being fun at any point - stop. Try things a different way if it's worth trying, but these games are supposed to be fun after all.

[rogueleader]

My advice would be just get the thing started. I spent the better part of last year preparing to run a game (which is now running pretty much every Thursday) that took seemingly forever to get going. I ran one on one prologue sessions with players (as a gm for me to understand their character better, and for them as players to better understand the world in which they are playing), I wrote myriad NPCs, and I tried to write a story that would tie very disperate characters together. One by one players dropped out and I am left with a single original player, these things happen when one procastinates around the bush. I finally just got the game started, with three players (two of whom live with me) and added players as the game went on. This isn't the perfect scenario I had imagined for starting a game, but after a few sessions we are all getting into the swing of things.
Games evolve through the actions of the players, which as a gm are mostly, in my experience, entirely unexpected. Players will very quickly derail the plot train if you try to railroad them, which is cool because, after all, it's their game as much as yours. I find it's best to have an idea of where you want each session to go to advance the story, but be ready to drop that at a moments notice and go off on a tangential side quest made up on the fly. For me flexibility is the key. I try to have broad brushstrokes of plot that can tie in around the players actions.

[Doktor Payne]

The sidequesty predilection can be made easier with conversations between sessions between players and players, and between players and the GM.

I'm the only original player left in RL's game in the above post (which you should totally post a new thread about dude, so I can gush about how amazing Sundra is), but part of the reason for that is I'm super engaged in the game world.

[Jonny]

When starting a new campaign I actually print out questionnaire and make players fill it out for their characters before the game begins - example below:

What is their name?

Describe them in one sentence

What do they look like?

How old are they?

What do they value?

Where are they from?

What were they doing 12 years ago?*

What were they doing 5 years ago?
*
What were they doing last year?

Who are they close to?

Who, or what, do they hate?

Do they have any surviving family? If so, where?

What do they struggle with?

What is the worst thing that ever happened to them?

What is the best thing that ever happened to them?

What is their worst nightmare?
*

Some, in this case the ones in asterisks, are campaign specific (important stuff happened at those times, so I need to know their context), but most are generic. I always tell players to fill them all in, even if the answer is "don't know", because I find that just making them think about it helps them flesh out the character in their own mind. Also, one of these questionnaires is such a wonderful source of plot-hooks and ways to tie the characters into the world - I am very excited because in a few sessions the grizzled old soldier in my game is going to end up in an intense encounter with his ex-wife, who was mentioned offhand in one of these questions (and I'm pretty sure the player had forgotten about).

[doormaster]

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received about making the world feel more alive is to make a timeline of what the different factions/people/countries/etc. would do if the players never got involved either directly or indirectly. That way it's easier to remember to include events the players are not involved with and it gives a good baseline to what should happen if the players decide to entangle themselves in some event.

[urchin]

I'm going to revive this thread with more GMing questions if that's alright with everyone!

I'm working on a Pathfinder campaign right now in my own world. The playable races are different from the standard set (though there is overlap), the deities are different, the technology level is renaissance rather than medieval, and there's a lot of cultural and historical backgrounding about the world that players might need for character creation. When you're starting a game in homebrew world like this, what do you produce for the players to give them the background information they need? I don't want to bore them, overload them, or give away worldbuilding that would be more fun to discover during play.

Most games I've played in that weren't high fantasy, the GM has just sent out a brief summary of the setting and game. For one D&D game, the GM made a wiki about their world. What do you prefer and why? I'm still going to have a character creation session where players can ask questions, but I want to give them somewhere to start.

So far my best idea is to write an ethnography or travelogue as though it were written by a character in the world, but I don't know if that's the greatest idea.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!