Setting up a player driven campaign and getting it going

[Yora]

I'm in the middle of preparing a new campaign. And by "in the middle" I mean that I have worked out the ground rules and culture of the setting and what specific rules and options I want to use, and don't have anything specific or concrete in the way of content yet.

My goal is to have a campaign that is all about the stories of the PCs, with NPCs making up the supporting cast. The players determine (through the PCs' actions) what will happen and not follow any events that I have planned out.
This gets complicated by the fact that I don't want the campaign to be a hexcrawl or a megadungeon, for which the preparation procedures have been pretty well solved years ago.
My ambition is that players are saying "there is this thing going on in a neighbouring place and I think we really should do something about it". This lends itself to heroism, but if the players decide that "the worst thing about this place is that I'm not the king", then that would also be fine with me. :smallcool:

The biggest problem with putting the choice up to the players is always that at the start of a new campaign, the players don't have any ideas yet what their choices are. Especially when it's a non-generic setting where players can expect the typical generic options to be available.
At the start of a campaign, you have to give the players some very obvious hooks that tell them "this way is an adventure that you can go on right now". I still would like to have the players learn at this early point that they are the ones to make the choices about what paths their characters end up on. My first question is: How do you offer players multiple easy to follow options at the start of the campaign?

After two or three adventures, the players have hopefully become familiar enough with the setting to know about various threats and conflicts that are going on, so that they can start meddling with them on their own initiative.
My second question is: What makes for good situations that players might want to get involved in, and how do you best introduce those during the first adventures?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Okay I have a lot of experience with player driven campaigns. Let me start off by saying this, do not make the first session player driven. Players do not have the context to make interesting informed decisions at this point.

In session 0 make your characters together and get a sense of who the characters are and what they want to be doing. Based on that do you prep work and come into session 1 with them starting already in the middle of the action in some way. Start off session 1 with something like "You've spent the past five days tracking the Grabooni down, the trail seems to have led you into the middle of the Swamp of Extreme Misery before you lost it. The Grabooni has been terrorizing the countryside and its lair is doubtless filled with the treasure of its countless victims. Do you try to pick up the trail again, or do you give up at this point and just settle for trying make the arduous journey back to town?" Or the equivalent for a game/group that's going to be about other things than monster killing and treasure.

The point is you give them a meaningful but restricted choice to start off with so they're not overwhelmed by options and you can go into it with at least some prep work. And then once the game hits the ground running you can start building up more and more player knowledge of the setting and they can move from multiple choice questions to fill in the blanks.

Also, for the love of god get players that actually want to be doing the whole player driven game thing at all. It's an exercise in frustration to try to GM this for people who want to sit back and be fed a story. If you have players like that you should give them a linear story instead, or, and this is my preferred option, kick them to the curb and get better players.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I'm in the middle of preparing a new campaign. And by "in the middle" I mean that I have worked out the ground rules and culture of the setting and what specific rules and options I want to use, and don't have anything specific or concrete in the way of content yet.

My goal is to have a campaign that is all about the stories of the PCs, with NPCs making up the supporting cast. The players determine (through the PCs' actions) what will happen and not follow any events that I have planned out.
This gets complicated by the fact that I don't want the campaign to be a hexcrawl or a megadungeon, for which the preparation procedures have been pretty well solved years ago.
My ambition is that players are saying "there is this thing going on in a neighbouring place and I think we really should do something about it". This lends itself to heroism, but if the players decide that "the worst thing about this place is that I'm not the king", then that would also be fine with me. :smallcool:

The biggest problem with putting the choice up to the players is always that at the start of a new campaign, the players don't have any ideas yet what their choices are. Especially when it's a non-generic setting where players can expect the typical generic options to be available.
At the start of a campaign, you have to give the players some very obvious hooks that tell them "this way is an adventure that you can go on right now". I still would like to have the players learn at this early point that they are the ones to make the choices about what paths their characters end up on. My first question is: How do you offer players multiple easy to follow options at the start of the campaign?

After two or three adventures, the players have hopefully become familiar enough with the setting to know about various threats and conflicts that are going on, so that they can start meddling with them on their own initiative.
My second question is: What makes for good situations that players might want to get involved in, and how do you best introduce those during the first adventures?

I would think you'll have to see their backstories to see what situations they'll want to be involved in.

Get their backstories and go from there. Oh, give them some general idea what the world is like so they can fit in, or not as they choose.

[Kesnit]

In general, this is a good idea. Three recommendations...

1) Have players develop a few plot hooks for their PCs prior to game start. This allows you to plant hooks, and also tell the player if their concept is just not going to work.

2) Make sure PC hooks can include the entire party. Several years ago, I was in a Changling: the Lost game where one of the PCs had the goal of getting his old life back. This is not an impossible goal, but rather than working with the party, he would try to run off and do solo adventures (or even just solo RP, like calling his wife).

3) Make sure all players are involved and get hooks. This sort of feeds off of #2, but in reverse. If one (or a small number) of players decide to take over, this can lead to everyone else just following along behind. Eventually, the plot revolves around a small number of PCs and their goals, and can drive players away if they feel they are not getting the attention other players are.

[Son of A Lich!]

First off; Conflict Dynamics

[Disclaimer, I'm not sure where I learned this, but it's been effective since highschool]

There are 5 roles in conflict - Protagonist (I'm going to do a thing), Antagonist (You had better not do that thing), Neutagonist (When I get involved, the fight is over), Deuteragonist (If y'all are going to fight, these are the rules) and Nontagonist (I hope my side wins so much!).

So, Killgore the Warlord is going to take a fortress for himself (Protagonist), The Order of the Bleeding Rose don't want him to take their keep (Antagonist), A Horde of Orcs are amassing in the country side and need to either be cleared out or they will fall under the banner of Killgore (Neutagonist), as foreseen by the old woman in the swamp (Deutagonist), and if the keep falls into the hands of Killgore, the Prince will be exiled or worse (Nontagonist).

Whenever you have a character that wants to accomplish a thing, be it kill a monster, eat a mystic fruit, get the treasure or become the king, you have a Protagonist.

Antagonists, by virtue of whatever is being done, wants the protagonist to stop.

Neutagonists simplify the conflict, which ever side they support will win.

Deuteragonists dictate the rules of the conflict. They give the exposition so we know what to expect and cannot be argued with.

Nontagonists can't influence the conflict, but how the conflict resolves will mean something important to them.

...

So you want the players to largely play the role of Neutagonists in the first few sessions. You want them to arrive and start dictating the conflicts resolution while they wade into the pool of the world around them.

Then you let them do cool stuff and get away with it, by letting them play Protagonists. Then you just start shifting around who is the Protagonist, Antagonist and whatever as the story continues.

The wizard college that needed the goblins cleared out of the cellar where they brew their potions in the first few sessions (Protagonists) may end up being the big damn hero (Neutagonists) in a later story while the party is fighting demons, for example. The doe-eyed princess who wasn't ready to take the throne may start having visions of impending doom in later sessions (Nontagonist to Deutagonist).

And there is nothing wrong with having multiple roles in different story lines. Killgore may be a Protagonist early, then a Neutagonist later under the service of a Lich (The new Protagonist), while still seeking a land for his hobgoblin allies (Nontagonist as far as they are concerned, as he doesn't want them weakened but isn't able to assist them himself). This is only a problem when you start double dipping in the same story line. If Killgore is Finding new land, using the undead forces of the Lich to secure that land, while simultaneously fighting the king and all of his men for the right to the land, and achieving his destiny he saw in a dream; Well, now Killgore is reading like a Mary Sue. The players are unconciously reading what his role in the story is, and if he is at the front and center of everything, it just comes off as cheesy.

Instead of wanting to see the prophet that foretold his conquest, they'll just question the legitimacy of his dreams. Instead of trying to seek out the Leader of the Undead forces, so much more emphasis is put on him that the problem actually seems a lot simplier to just take him out instead. And the more things you pile onto him in the same story, the more it comes off as a "+Infinity Shield of Plot Relevance" that's just going to become grating.

The other side of this is, when the players do take him out, he is never going to be badass enough to warrant the focus AND have a peaceful resolution to the story without a Deus Ex Machina. Then it feels like the players wasted their time on something that seemed simple (Killgore was the leader of this horde, the land baron, and the prophet of these peoples; Why are they still fighting just as strong without him? Who is this second in command and this other cleric dude we never heard about before? When did they get so powerful?) but was actually more complicated.

However, with a good solid grasp on Conflict Dynamics, you can make the story go on forever with constantly shifting roles and new goals to accomplish. The barrelling orcs of yesterday are now trying to find their god's sacred weapon and rekindle the horde. The Pit Fiend that was vanquished for a thousand years had an Eryines that needed his success to further her schemes and wants revenge. The god of magic is weakening with the rise of some undead monster forming a cult of worship around him.

It's just musical chairs that makes things interesting.

Oh, and have Fun - first and foremost.

[Zombimode]

I'm in the middle of preparing a new campaign. And by "in the middle" I mean that I have worked out the ground rules and culture of the setting and what specific rules and options I want to use, and don't have anything specific or concrete in the way of content yet.

My goal is to have a campaign that is all about the stories of the PCs, with NPCs making up the supporting cast. The players determine (through the PCs' actions) what will happen and not follow any events that I have planned out.
This gets complicated by the fact that I don't want the campaign to be a hexcrawl or a megadungeon, for which the preparation procedures have been pretty well solved years ago.
My ambition is that players are saying "there is this thing going on in a neighbouring place and I think we really should do something about it". This lends itself to heroism, but if the players decide that "the worst thing about this place is that I'm not the king", then that would also be fine with me. :smallcool:

That pretty much only works with a setting known by heart by the players.

Thus modern day settings are great for this, as are very fleshed out settings that all your players just happen to know and love. Ie. Tamriel for a bunch of Elder Scorlls fans, or Aventurien for DSA-nerds. Settings with lots of information easily available on the internet.

Using a self-made setting requires a massive buy-in and dedication to do the homework from your players.

[Neknoh]

I wrote this guide two days ago

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578246-Neknoh-s-Guide-to-building-a-living-open-world-campaign-on-a-coherent-theme

It is a very quick and easy way to set up a sprawling open world, and as long as the players all have backstories and connections, you can do the same with those stories by asking "where are they in all of this?"

[Yora]

Start off session 1 with something like "You've spent the past five days tracking the Grabooni down, the trail seems to have led you into the middle of the Swamp of Extreme Misery before you lost it. The Grabooni has been terrorizing the countryside and its lair is doubtless filled with the treasure of its countless victims. Do you try to pick up the trail again, or do you give up at this point and just settle for trying make the arduous journey back to town?" Or the equivalent for a game/group that's going to be about other things than monster killing and treasure.

The point is you give them a meaningful but restricted choice to start off with so they're not overwhelmed by options and you can go into it with at least some prep work. And then once the game hits the ground running you can start building up more and more player knowledge of the setting and they can move from multiple choice questions to fill in the blanks.

I would think you'll have to see their backstories to see what situations they'll want to be involved in.

Get their backstories and go from there. Oh, give them some general idea what the world is like so they can fit in, or not as they choose.
So, start with a conventional adventure and build on what you get from the players while playing it.

That pretty much only works with a setting known by heart by the players.

Thus modern day settings are great for this, as are very fleshed out settings that all your players just happen to know and love. Ie. Tamriel for a bunch of Elder Scorlls fans, or Aventurien for DSA-nerds. Settings with lots of information easily available on the internet.

Using a self-made setting requires a massive buy-in and dedication to do the homework from your players.
The key here is that the surface level of the setting needs to consist of easily, and preferably instantly recognizable elements. The poster child for this is the first half hour or so of Star Wars:
Rebels fight against the Empire. Rebells running away, Empire chasing. Rebells small ship, Empire massive ship. Imperial soldiers wear skeleton armor. Rebell soldiers get slaughtered without much of a fight. Imperial leader is a black knight with a skull mask. Imperial officers wear Nazi uniforms. Luke is a farm boy. Obi-wan is an old wizard., casts magic spells on sand people and stormtroopers to leave him alone. Mos Eysley is full of gangsters and pirates. Han is a gunslinger, shots first, nobody cares. The empire wants to nuke planets to scare everyone in line and destroy the rebells. The Black Knight with the skull mask thinks that's a waste of time when you have magic.
There's barely any need to explain anything. It's all standard stuff that everyone immediately recognizes. You wait for the players to get familiar with these things, pick sides, and make plans. And after that you start introducing any deeper and more complex levels.