PDA

View Full Version : Help! Losing interest in my own games!



Swooper
2010-10-27, 07:44 PM
Hello, Playground. I have a problem that I would like some feedback on how to deal with...

The thing is, every time I run a game I end up losing interest in it after a few sessions at most and giving up on it. This has happened in every single game I've ever run (mostly RL games, but one PbP too), with the obvious exception of oneshots (well, just one actually). I guess the cause is an attention-span deficiency plus a strong preference for playing in rather than running games. But I still keep wanting to run games because I love world-building and coming up with epic plots and stuff, but then I end up getting a new campaign idea and losing interest in the old one before the players are even aware of the plot. In the most recent example, I ended up handing over the game to one of the players and adding in a PC of my own.

Now I have a new idea simmering in my head, and I don't want the same thing to happen once again. Has anyone else had this problem? How did you deal with it? Or even if you haven't experienced this yourself, do you have any suggestions?

Krylea
2010-10-27, 07:47 PM
I have almost the exact same problem, the only difference being that i tend to lose interest before i even completely finish writing my campaigns. Unforunately, i don't have a lot of advice to give. :(
The only things that helped for me were finding a campaign that i was really excited about and making my campaigns fairly short.

Swooper
2010-10-27, 07:51 PM
I have almost the exact same problem, the only difference being that i tend to lose interest before i even completely finish writing my campaigns.
Ah yes, this happens a lot too.

Unforunately, i don't have a lot of advice to give. :(
The only things that helped for me were finding a campaign that i was really excited about and making my campaigns fairly short.
The problem with this solution is that the campaign plots I think of are usually too epic to make short games out of :smallfrown: I could try though.

Drakevarg
2010-10-27, 07:58 PM
My recommendation? Multiple plotlines running simultaneously. If, say, you get bored of the zombie invasion plotline and want to mess with robots for a while, just suddenly have the robots break into the scene and hog the attention. When you or your players get bored of the robots, you can always return to the zombies, or pull out something else entirely.

The best campaign I ever played in ran like this. It was impossible to tell where the plot would take us next, because no matter what we were doing we could potentially find ourselves in an entirely different plane of existance five minutes later. I don't think we got anything done, but damn if we didn't have fun doing it. :smallamused:

Kaun
2010-10-27, 08:01 PM
I used to have this problem a lot.

I still do now but i have learnt to deal with it.

How did i get past it?

It might be growing up and gaining some patience, but it was more down to a bit of self discipline.

It sounds like a stupid thing for something you do for fun but you have to force yourself to focus on the one game.

Avoid reading source books non related to the game/world you are playing in.

If you come up with an alternative game idea make a note about it and then try to force yourself to stop thinking about it.

Try and shift your game related thoughts back onto the task at hand and how you can improve your current game.

At the end of the day this one is going to be 99% you.

You have to brake your own "bad" habbits.

All so try only having small story arcs for your games (like 2-5 session ones)as trying to stick to a single ongoing plot line can get borring for people that suffer from ADD&D

ScionOfBlades
2010-10-27, 08:01 PM
I would suggest the possibility of a campaign/world building adoption thread.

Where DM's go and build an entire world, plot line, case notes, adventure notes, player suggestions, kinks, tricks, races, monsters, encounters and then give it up to the Playground for free.

Whoever claims your master piece credits you in the OOC and IC threads for the game.

2-HeadedGiraffe
2010-10-27, 08:49 PM
Have you considered co-DMing with someone else? You could do most of the world-building, concepts, etc. that you said you like, then let someone else do most of the session-to-session running of the game.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 09:14 PM
It sounds like you like world-building, but aren't so thrilled about DMing.

comicshorse
2010-10-27, 10:25 PM
Have you considered co-DMing with someone else? You could do most of the world-building, concepts, etc. that you said you like, then let someone else do most of the session-to-session running of the game.

I'd second that, one of the best games I was ever in was organized this way

Elfin
2010-10-27, 10:44 PM
I'll second Kyoryu on that one. If you find that DMing isn't your thing, just world-building can be very enjoyable. And hey, if you ever end up DMing, you'll have a load of resources to draw on.

But if you want to become a better DM...well, I'm not great myself, but I've found it helps to at least begin with some focused writing and world-building: that way you have a solid baseline to work with, and will be less tempted to abandon the game (especially since you've spent hours of drudgery on it).
Stewing on an idea for a while is fine, but invest work into in it before too long - otherwise it'll invariably be swept away by all he other great campaign ideas you have.

That said, if you think of a new idea or plot you like more than the old one, don't be afraid to replace it. If the PCs are fighting against a massive gnoll invasion, rallying militias and organizing defenses, but you find yourself wishing you had a detective game, perhaps the grand duke who is leading the resistance forces is assassinated and his soul bound - the PCs must unmask the murderer in order to recover the duke's essence and resurrect him.
Or, if you suddenly love the idea of githyanki cults summoning an eldritch horror, introduce that as an urgent threat that must be dealt with, threatening to crumble the free lands from within even as the gnolls swarm against their borders.

Gabe the Bard
2010-10-27, 11:01 PM
Perhaps you can try a couple of mini-campaigns, maybe just 2 or 3 sessions long each. You could keep the same characters or even just the setting, but space out the events so the campaigns aren't related to each other at all. If you know that the campaign will end in just one or two more sessions, it might put less pressure on you to draw it out into a full-blown months-long story.

Also, if you have to resolve the campaign in just 2 or 3 sessions, you will probably have to condense the story and try to accomplish more in each session. That could make the sessions more interesting and give you the opportunity to develop the plot more quickly.

Valameer
2010-10-28, 12:16 AM
Carefully watching this thread, as I suffer severely from the same problem.

For me it's wanting to play, with no desire to DM. But I always end up DMing since my players always suffer huge DM's block every time they try to run a game.

So none of our games last more than a few months, but they agree at least mine are fun. :smallsigh: So I DM more often than not.

I've DMed too long though... and I've always liked playing more.

HMS Invincible
2010-10-28, 12:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

crimson77
2010-10-28, 12:50 AM
Now I have a new idea simmering in my head, and I don't want the same thing to happen once again. Has anyone else had this problem? How did you deal with it? Or even if you haven't experienced this yourself, do you have any suggestions?
As you mentioned, you lose interest in your games and starting a new campaign is fun because you get to create a new world, plots, etc. Now, this is a problem for your players who will have to constantly roll up new characters.

My suggestion is compromise.

Have your players roll up characters they plan on playing for a while. Now during the first session(s) you have them go along a plot in a world. During this time they discover an ancient magical device which they cannot seem to get to work. Now when you start to lose interest in the game then you have the device start working and it inadvertently transports the party to a new location, plane, or multiverse where a new campaign or adventure is starting. The overarching adventure maybe trying to figure out the device and get home or just adventure along the way.

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-28, 02:49 AM
What it sounds like is happening, is that you keep losing focus, wanting other elements/plotlines to come in to the game. What you should do, is start introducing elements into the games from your new ideas, as you let the PCs overcome the elements of your old ideas... smooth integration is wonderful.

Gnomo
2010-10-28, 04:22 AM
Maybe you should try a campaign ala Quantum Leap, i mean, every few sessions the characters are in one world, they finish what they were meant to do there and are transported to a different world to do something else.

That will give you a good load of world building and diversity while the players can keep their characters developing.

Gan The Grey
2010-10-28, 04:36 AM
Build a sandbox world where what happens depends on the players and a robust encounter table. That's what I did. I kinda feel like a player in my own world now, because, even though I've laid out the basics for the world - the people, the places, the relationships, the history, the secrets - what actually happens is entirely reliant on what my players decide to get themselves into on that day, and a roll (lots of rolls actually) of the dice. I honestly have NO clue anymore how a session is going to turn out from week to week.

Took alot of work, mind you, work that is STILL being done to this day, but the results have been pretty freaking awesome. I used to get all excited about my plans and plots, and then as they slowly unfolded, it got boring knowing exactly what the story was going to be ahead of time, even with my seemingly directionless players to throw curve balls at me. Now? I'm always excited to see what's going to happen THIS week, what crap they are going to get themselves into and how they are going to survive another day.

Psyx
2010-10-28, 04:46 AM
Hello, Playground. I have a problem that I would like some feedback on how to deal with...


Possible solutions:

Work to your strengths: Run one-shots and other short games. Large campaigns are intimidating and can cause burn-out and aren't everyone's cup of tea. Consider running a game for either a single scenario or for 4-6 sessions.

Rotate: We do this when GMs are getting burned out. Each of you runs for 3-6 sessions, or a scenario, or a mini-portion of campaign arc, then the campaign goes on pause, GM duty moves to someone else, and you play something totally different for a while. If there are 3-4 GMs: Even better.

Less long-term goals: It's inferred from your OP that you plan worlds and entire plots out. I always find this akin to putting a bullet in the head of my enthusiasm. Start with no over-all goal in mind, and start small. Plan a scenario or two in advance. If the party start in a village, then plan the village and the surrounding area. When they look like heading to a city, work on that. The problem with building meta-world and meta-plot is that -in initial stages of the campaign - they are completely divorced from what the party are doing and essentially pretty useless. Thus there is an emotional distancing between the two. It's then easy to loose interest as there is no cross-over between all your hard work and what your friends are actually doing.

Yahzi
2010-10-28, 05:31 AM
Build a sandbox world where what happens depends on the players and a robust encounter table....

Now? I'm always excited to see what's going to happen THIS week, what crap they are going to get themselves into and how they are going to survive another day.
I wholeheartedly agree.

It's boring telling a story for very long. But in a sandbox world, your players are telling you a story.

Plus, you get to do tons of world-building. :smallbiggrin:

pffh
2010-10-28, 06:09 AM
I have this problem too but I found a solution. When I start getting bored I arrange for a quick solution of the immediate problem and then hand the DM chair to someone else that will run his own stuff in the same world with the same characters. Then when my interest returns I let the other DM know and wait for him to finish his stuff and we return to my plot.

It took my a couple of attempts to create campaigns that could easilly be halted and then continued later but now it works great for me.

An example would be a campaign where the players were messing around in a high magic island, lost interest and finished this making it seem like they fixed everything.
The next DM brought the adventure to the mainland and some stuff happened. I took back over brought them back to the island to be judged for their actions in the high magic stuff, I lose interest and end up with them saving the judges (the archmage of the a large mage council) son and have him drop the charges.
Next DM has us travel around the world doing stuff and making friends for a few levels and then I finally continue and finish my stuff. Long campaign over that had one over arching plot (mine) and many subplots detailing the heroes other deeds.

This also works well for me since I have a habit of losing interest in my own characters as well so I usually retire them to NPC status when I take over DM'ing again and when I start playing I create a new character.

pife
2010-10-28, 07:17 AM
The thing is, every time I run a game I end up losing interest in it after a few sessions at most and giving up on it. This has happened in every single game I've ever run

But I still keep wanting to run games because I love world-building and coming up with epic plots and stuff, but then I end up getting a new campaign idea and losing interest in the old one before the players are even aware of the plot.


Yeah, see.. this is totally me.. I feel your pain, and I will be paying close attention to all suggestions here. Mostly, mine has been that in the 26 years that I've been RP'ing, I've only been able to be a regular "player" for about 4 of them.. So mine might just be burnout on running games..

Swooper
2010-10-28, 08:59 AM
A lot of good advice here, thank you all for the feedback! :smallsmile:

My recommendation? Multiple plotlines running simultaneously.
This... is brilliant. I will definitely do something like this. Now I just need to start setting plotlines up so that they can be abandoned and returned to later...

@Kaun: Some very good points there, self control regarding this would probably help a lot.

Have you considered co-DMing with someone else? You could do most of the world-building, concepts, etc. that you said you like, then let someone else do most of the session-to-session running of the game.
I have, and I would consider this if any of my players had the time to spare and were mechanics-savvy enough to pull this off. As is, I'm actually the co-DM in one game, meaning I design encounters (to the main DM's specifications) and help combat run smoothly. It works fine because I have a PC to keep me interested and no investment in the actual plot. Doing it the other way around with me as the main DM and someone else to help with encounters and stuff would be interesting.

Build a sandbox world where what happens depends on the players and a robust encounter table.
I'm not sure I like this idea. Sandbox world is good (I usually try to run sandboxy games anyway), but I've never been a fan of random encounters...

Work to your strengths: Run one-shots and other short games.
The problem with this, as mentioned, is that the plot ideas I get are generally too epic to resolve in only a few sessions. :/

Rotate
This could work... I might experiment with this if I ever feel like running the game I gave over to one of the players again. Didn't even consider the possibility of taking it back, thanks! :smallsmile:

Less long-term goals
This is very valid. In fact, it's perfect for the idea I have in my head now, which is (initially?) site-based around a village and the nearby area, with some vague ideas of what might lie behind the next hill. Instead of drawing continent maps like I usually do, I will only draw small-scale area maps.


So, to summarize my current plan of action:
When I get a new idea, introduce it into the current game instead of starting a new one.
Make sure each plotline can be abandoned and returned to later.
Don't build the entire world at once. Start small and add more locations/features as the game develops.
Use a co-DM of some sort (either parallel or rotating) to help, if possible.

More feedback and suggestions are of course appreciated. Even if they don't apply to my case (like the recurring "run short games" one), there are apparently a lot of people who are dealing with the same problem out there who might benefit from this thread. :smallsmile:

arrowhen
2010-10-28, 09:54 AM
What if you turned your epic campaign idea into a trilogy? Run a low level mini-campaign followed by mid- and high-level "sequels" featuring the same PCs bumped up a few levels each time.

Angelmaker
2010-10-28, 10:23 AM
I advise against multiple plot lines. At least gainst too many of them. 2 or 3 surely is ok, but that´s it

You just have too much to keep track of, what´s happening and where and why and your players also have to catch all the hints and plot advancements, which depending on the group can just be... unsatisfying. Especially with long pauses in between playtime.

What did it for me was to create a google group for the guys - since I was responsible and in charge of that I had to organize all the dates and that was what kept me running. So far, at least, roughly 20 consecutive sessions over half a year. About 100-250% more sessions than any campaign before. :smallsmile:


The problem with this, as mentioned, is that the plot ideas I get are generally too epic to resolve in only a few sessions. :/
Metaplot for epic stuff is fine, but break it down within normal "achievable" plotlines.

For example:

Metaplot: Lich tries to achieve world domination through a powerful ritual.

Plot 1: Group learns of a trader, handing over a artifact to a pawn of the lich.Preventing the artifact from reaching the lich makes the lich learn about his enemies.
Plot 2: Group tries to evade more pawns of the lich, which go for the artifact. They learn of a location where the artifact would be safe from the lich and some help available.

And so on, and so on... So you get "measure" points of what was achieved and you can close the old plot line.

Most of my games shut down because I had too many unresolved plot lines going on. It just does not work ( for me ).

valadil
2010-10-28, 10:39 AM
I have a similar, but less severe problem. I focus on one character or event that must resolve. Once that happens, the game is done for me and I rush to the ending. The natural length of my games is about 8 sessions, but I've hit 20 before and my current one is around 16.

Anyway, my guess is that you're getting bored because the campaign is too epic. The big finale that you have planned is so far away that you think you'll never get there and so you get bored.

If that's the case, I have two suggestions. 1) Start at a higher level. Skip all that low level business and go straight to the part of the game that interests you. 2) Go ahead an start from level 1, but only if you can come up with plots that will keep you entertained until you reach your epic ideas.

Basically you need to make sure you have stuff you want to do to the players at each level of game play. This should all be material that you actually want to see happen, not the dungeon of thrice leveling and +2 magic items for all. If you can't come up with that part of game, skip it. (Assuming of course that I guess at your problem correctly.)

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 12:50 PM
Let me ask a very simple question:

Would you ever be willing to run a game based on a canned setting, or even a canned module? IOW, do you enjoy the actual act of DMing?

If not, and what you really enjoy is world-building, then I'd really look at ways to work with that, and find someone to offload the actual DMing duties on.

Also, to keep interest in a single setting, it might be useful to scope *down*. Instead of building a whole world, build a kingdom. Then, if you get the urge to do something radically different, you can just put it in a different part of the world or on an island or something. If you build the whole world all at once, you hem yourself in and limit future options.

Obviously, this may not work for radically different ideas, but within a generic fantasy-esque world it can probably handle quite a bit - after all, think of how many different adventure types you can have in the real world!

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 12:52 PM
Sandbox world is good (I usually try to run sandboxy games anyway), but I've never been a fan of random encounters...I have to ask: How do you manage a sandbox campaign without random encounters?

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 02:09 PM
I'm not sure I like this idea. Sandbox world is good (I usually try to run sandboxy games anyway), but I've never been a fan of random encounters...


What's wrong with random encounters, anyway? If you're concerned about how arbitrary they are, make more focused random encounter tables for specific regions, or even change them as the world/political situation evolves.

arrowhen
2010-10-28, 02:35 PM
Sandbox play doesn't require random encounters.

valadil
2010-10-28, 02:48 PM
I have to ask: How do you manage a sandbox campaign without random encounters?

The way I do it is that the PCs aren't the only ones playing in the sandbox. NPCs move around and make stuff happen too. If the players piss off such an NPC, he'll hire some thugs to take out the players.

Obviously that's an extremely simple case. Basically anything the players touch can snowball and whack them later.

Swooper
2010-10-28, 03:16 PM
I advise against multiple plot lines. At least gainst too many of them. 2 or 3 surely is ok, but that´s it
Makes sense, I don't suppose I'd go much beyond that anyway.

What did it for me was to create a google group for the guys - since I was responsible and in charge of that I had to organize all the dates and that was what kept me running.
The group I co-DM for has been using Facebook for organization to good effect. It's especially useful there because it's also an experiment in running monstrously huge groups (we had like 12 players at one point), and getting them together without something like this is a logistical nightmare. I'll have a much smaller group of close friends myself, so it should be easier. Good point though.

Metaplot for epic stuff is fine, but break it down within normal "achievable" plotlines.
Makes a lot of sense. I'll probably do this to ensure I can break away from the current plot easily - set up rather short, "modular" adventures that represent milestones in the storyline.

Anyway, my guess is that you're getting bored because the campaign is too epic. The big finale that you have planned is so far away that you think you'll never get there and so you get bored.
Probably spot-on there. My games tend to have a rather-too-long intro. I really need to cut that bit out or seriously shorten it.

1) Start at a higher level. Skip all that low level business and go straight to the part of the game that interests you. 2) Go ahead an start from level 1, but only if you can come up with plots that will keep you entertained until you reach your epic ideas.
I feel that starting too high removes some of the epicness, actually. The best campaigns I've played in have been the 1-20 ones that, near the end, made me go "oh wow, this all fits together now, everything we've done has been leading to this!" and I suppose that's the feel I'm trying to emulate in my own games (unsuccessfully, so far). For some of my plot ideas it might work, though. Food for thought.

Would you ever be willing to run a game based on a canned setting, or even a canned module? IOW, do you enjoy the actual act of DMing?
In a game like D&D, I'd probably never run a game in a setting I didn't create. Some games come with their own setting (Exalted, Houses of the Blooded...) and as long as I like the setting I don't mind that much. I feel much more restricted and uncomfortable with those, though. Canned modules, sure. I actually have a stack of old (AD&D era) Dungeon magazines that I sometimes look at for inspiration, I've run a module (or actually, half a module - go figure :smallsigh:) from one of them mostly unchanged except for stat-updating to 3.5 once even. So I don't mind those.

Also, to keep interest in a single setting, it might be useful to scope *down*.
Has been covered in the thread already, I agree that it's a good idea.

I have to ask: How do you manage a sandbox campaign without random encounters?
Quite simple. Party decides where they want to go, different things happen depending on where they go, when, and what they do. No rails doesn't mean random. Also, what valadil said in his reply.

What's wrong with random encounters, anyway?
They mean I have to have several different encounters statted up and ready instead of just the ones I know they might actually run into :smallwink: Fighting monsters straight from the MM isn't as fun as fighting templated stuff with class levels and the feats changed around.
Also, because if the encounters are random it means they don't have anything to do with the plot. And a DM with my problem shouldn't be spending too much time NOT advancing the plot...

Sleepingbear
2010-10-28, 03:20 PM
I have an aspiring writer buddy of mine with a similar problem. This is the advice I gave him.

Don't write a novel.

Write a series of short stories set in the same world.

You can use the same characters for each story or mix it with new characters but it's the world that provides the continuity. And things that happened in the last story effect how things start and playout in the next.

Heck, you can always bring back old favorites (characters) after a few others have had their run.

This seems to be in a similar vain as the rest of the advice being given to you.

Gan The Grey
2010-10-28, 03:38 PM
My random encounters aren't simply 'You encounter 1d7 ogres. Roll for initiative.' 15% chance of encounter per hour. I start with this chart.

D% Encounter Type
01-15 Change in Weather
16-25 Animal
26-30 Beast
31-60 Humanity
61-70 Landscape
71-77 Item
78-80 Area Specific
81-90 Roll Two Times
91-97 Roll Three Times
98-00 Roll Four Times

Sorry, don't know how to make a chart.

This chart represents the chance of an encounter on a safe highway. The percentages change for unsafe highways, civilized wilderness(farmlands), uncivilized wilderness, and feral wilderness(redundant wilderness is redundant).

Change in Weather – Roll on the Weather chart in the DMG or online, disregarding a result if it means the weather doesn’t change. On a roll of 01, a violent change in weather indicated will directly affect the players.
Animal – An encounter with a number the Animal type creatures, or with signs of an animal. Animals begin at either neutral (1), unfriendly (2-5), hostile (6), or signs - like tracks - of an animal (7-8).
Beast – An encounter with a number of unnatural and generally scary creatures or the signs of their passing. Includes the uncivilized monstrous humanoids.
Humanity – An encounter with civilized humanoids, though they may not always ACT civilized. Traveling merchants, squads of soldiers, and bandit ambushes all fall under this heading.
Landscape – An encounter with some interesting manner of landscape like a cave opening, chunk of ore, or even a copse of darkwood trees.
Item – The players happen upon a discarded or misplaced item, valuable or not.
Area Specific – Monsters of fable, forgotten ruins, and magical events are all included under this heading. Unlike other types, regardless of the number of indicated rolls required, once an Area Specific type has come up, rolling ceases. This is to ensure a higher rarity for Area Specific encounters.
Roll Two/Three/Four - Roll multiple times and combine the results. There is a 35% chance with each of these rolls that the outcome is mysterious. During a mysterious encounter, the players come upon the scene of some strange and hard to explain phenomena. Determine the multiple sources of the encounter, then create a scene utilizing all elements, though after they all got together. If not mysterious roll 1d6. 1-2 The characters have a chance to recognize the situation and affect it before it happens. 3-5 The scene erupts just as the players realize what's going on. 6 The players witness the scene from a distance and can decide if they want to intervene.

The charts become alot more specific after this, depending on area, but it can really generate some very interesting situations that help to illustrate the different elements coming together in a specific area of the world, making it feel more real. The random encounters often become mini-adventures, especially when I roll for mysterious. When the players come upon the scene of a busted wagon with a blood smear in the back and bits of busted crate, they can choose to investigate to find out what happened, and maybe they will go after the culprits.

arrowhen
2010-10-28, 04:01 PM
*I* can't do it right now because my crappy phone has a 100 character limit, but someone should totally start a thread on sandbox techniques!

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 04:10 PM
In a game like D&D, I'd probably never run a game in a setting I didn't create. Some games come with their own setting (Exalted, Houses of the Blooded...) and as long as I like the setting I don't mind that much. I feel much more restricted and uncomfortable with those, though. Canned modules, sure. I actually have a stack of old (AD&D era) Dungeon magazines that I sometimes look at for inspiration, I've run a module (or actually, half a module - go figure :smallsigh:) from one of them mostly unchanged except for stat-updating to 3.5 once even. So I don't mind those.

Sounds to me like you don't actually like DMing much at all. An interesting approach to your problem might be to move into a worldbuilding-only role, and work with a couple of DMs who like DMing but aren't into worldbuilding.

That way, you can do what is, to you, the interesting bits, and don't have to deal with the minutae of actually running a game.


They mean I have to have several different encounters statted up and ready instead of just the ones I know they might actually run into :smallwink: Fighting monsters straight from the MM isn't as fun as fighting templated stuff with class levels and the feats changed around.
Also, because if the encounters are random it means they don't have anything to do with the plot. And a DM with my problem shouldn't be spending too much time NOT advancing the plot...

They're more up-front, one-time prep work, true, but once that's done they can save a lot of time over the long run.

Also, as far as "canned" vs. customized encounters, the players don't really know if they're customized at all, depending on experience. Your custom orc template is only really that different if they're used to "generic" orcs.

Even so, you can lower your prep burden by having some "garden variety" encounters, some encounters with a mix of "garden variety" critters with a couple of specials, as well as some encounters that are completely custom. As long as players are having fun, they don't mind. You may feel that you could do better by doing another hour or two of work, and you probably can - but that's *always* going to be true, and at some point you need to say "good enough" and get on with it. While that may not be as awesome as the stuff you had in mind, a campaign that continues to run is probably more awesome than one that peters out in 3 weeks.

As far as not advancing the plot, that's not necessarily true. One good skill for a DM to develop is how to take random elements and weave them into a coherent whole. It's a huge part of being able to improvisational DMing, which is pretty vital.

I'm wondering if that might be causing some of your burnout as well - do you feel the need to have *every detail* planned for each game, or do you give yourself room for improvisation? Do you get uncomfortable when moving into areas that you don't have completely locked down to every detail? If so, you might be burning out from over-planning, especially since no plan survives first contact with the enemy (the enemy being, of course, the players.)

arrowhen
2010-10-28, 04:24 PM
I strenously object to the notion that not wanting to run a game in a premade setting means one doesn't really like DMing.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 04:30 PM
I strenously object to the notion that not wanting to run a game in a premade setting means one doesn't really like DMing.

It doesn't, but I'm just getting that whole feeling off of it.

I enjoy DMing - I prefer to do it in my own settings, but I'd still enjoy doing it in a canned setting. I just actually enjoy the time spent DMing.

If I had a bunch of people that wanted to play, but they *really* wanted to play Forgotten Realms, and my choice was "run FR or don't play," I'd pick "run FR" in an instant.

I'm not sure the OP would, and that's what I'm kind of trying to tease out.

If the choice was "run FR," "run homebrew," or "don't run a game," I'd pick homebrew every time.

Make sense?

BlueWizard
2010-10-28, 04:32 PM
Then you must make the Game-World interesting for you. Only then will you have a chance at making it interesting for others.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 04:40 PM
Quite simple. Party decides where they want to go, different things happen depending on where they go, when, and what they do. No rails doesn't mean random. Also, what valadil said in his reply.I guess we're using 'sandbox' to mean different things. If I have planned encounters depending on what the party decides, I don't personally feel like I'm running a sandbox campaign anymore, because things are planned out. My old group would sometimes get on me about 'railroading/DM story hour' if I had set pieces ready for their decisions, which is part of where that stems from.

arrowhen
2010-10-28, 04:47 PM
I love DMing and I'd rather not play than be forced to run a campaign in a canned setting.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 04:50 PM
I love DMing and I'd rather not play than be forced to run a campaign in a canned setting.

I'm sorry, your specific example does not fit my generalization. Therefore, you do not exist. Please go away, or I will take more meds and make you go away.

:smalltongue:

(as I said before, I kind of get the vibe that the OP doesn't really enjoy DMing itself, not that the scenario of a DM that won't run a canned setting can't exist)

Swooper
2010-10-28, 05:29 PM
I'm with arrowhen here - I like DMing, I just have a strong preference for not using premade settings. It depends a lot on which setting though - Forgotten Realms is pretty generic fantasy, I can do that myself in a way I will find more interesting. Something more out of the ordinary like Dark Sun, however... I might be willing to try that.

What would still bother me is that I'd need to read up to know things about the world in my own campaign (yeah, I can alter campaign settings, I know, I just don't feel comfortable contradicting existing lore)...

This isn't really a problem though, my group always uses homebrew settings anyway. I don't even remember ever playing in a premade setting, except a Rokugan d20 game with a different group and a Ravenloft oneshot (again, different group).

Edit:

I guess we're using 'sandbox' to mean different things.
To me, sandbox means a game where the party is absolutely free to go wherever they want and free to pick up or ignore any plot hooks I throw at them. If they go somewhere or do something I did not anticipate and prepare for, I will improvise, but I'll pretty much never use random encounter tables or anything like that.

Gan The Grey
2010-10-28, 08:21 PM
To me, sandbox means a game where the party is absolutely free to go wherever they want and free to pick up or ignore any plot hooks I throw at them. If they go somewhere or do something I did not anticipate and prepare for, I will improvise, but I'll pretty much never use random encounter tables or anything like that.

You should rethink that 'never'. I felt the same way at first about it. The thing is, if you don't take the plot hook control out of your hands, you may never realize how biased you are towards certain things. I have since run MANY scenarios that I would have otherwise never thought of, and most of them have turned out awesome.

If you throw plot hooks at your players, those plothooks are generally going to stick to your most comfortable ideas, your most familiar ideas. With a good, robust random encounter generator like the one I illustrated above, you are forced to place yourself in unnatural (for you) scenarios and attempt to justify their existence. It will expand both yours and your players horizons.

And I'm not saying that you take creatures straight from the MM. You can set it up however you want.

My 2 cents.

Swooper
2010-10-28, 09:02 PM
Such randomness may work for you, but I have absolutely no interest in using it in my games. :smallconfused:

Ormur
2010-10-28, 10:10 PM
Funny I should be giving advice here but I really understand the wish for running epic 1-20 campaigns. That's what I set out to do. I designed the world at first but I've been adding things to it as it unfolds, including a lot of stuff that's completely new, based on where the players go. It's been similar plot wise. I always had an idea about what would happen in the beginning and in the end but I've been filling in stuff I suddenly think of to occupy the players depending on what we do in each session. Starting with something broad and running things as they go basically.

You're probably a more objective judge than me on whether that actually works out but at least I have fun preparing and running almost every session. :smalltongue: