Which Comes First; Characters or Story

[Samwich]

Say you want to DM a new campaign. Would you say it is better to first,

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?

Personally, I always use option A, but I've been thinking of starting a new game sometime soon and I was curious if anybody uses option B.

[Sigreid]

For me, C. Players make their characters and start interacting with the world. The story evolves more or less organically from that.

[Tawmis]

Between A and B, I'd say A.

But as Sigreid said, I typically find ways to weave their backgrounds either as hook plots, or make them parts of the story.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I do A, with the caveat that I will change huge parts of the story if it works better with the characters.

For example, the current campaign I'm running now has a sentient skeleton Necromancer as a key recurring NPC. He is meant to be fairly neutral (as far as Necromancers go), being really shady but ultimately harmless, but when one of the players came up with an undead-hating paladin who would never tolerate the presence of an undead, I rewrote the character so that he would disguise his undead nature, and ultimately end up as the big bad of the story, as it fit with the kind of story that character was designed for.

(Ultimately the player dropped the character as they ended up using them in another session, so I ultimately changed how the NPC would work again, but one of my players may read this forum so I won't spoil how they're different)

[GlenSmash!]

For me, C. Players make their characters and start interacting with the world. The story evolves more or less organically from that.

This.

I think less in terms of Story and more in terms of the World. The Characters are going to encounter scenarios in the World and decide what they do. After resolving uncertainty the DM has the World respond to the actions, and consequences of the actions, of the Characters. Rinse and repeat.

The Story is the output of this Character/World interaction.

[Corran]

Neither. But especially not B. Never B. Ever.

If you plan a whole campaign arc around a pc, I bet you that 99 out of 100 DM's wont allow this pc to get killed. At least until the arc plays out. Imo, this is the most boring way to play dnd.

[darknite]

C. above.

Certainly have a story arc in mind when you start a campaign. But alter it to interleave with your players' actions and interests. The players will invest in a story about their characters more readily than something more afield.

[Eldariel]

D. I build a general world and I'm more than willing to work with the players to fit their background stories with their relevant organisations and characters in there. Then world happens, characters forge their way in it through playing, producing a story.

[Sigreid]

D. I build a general world and I'm more than willing to work with the players to fit their background stories with their relevant organisations and characters in there. Then world happens, characters forge their way in it through playing, producing a story.

This is pretty much what 8 meant with my C.

[ChildofLuthic]

I mean, basically A, with the caveat that I'll usually nudge the players to make their characters backstories tie into the adventure. It helps that I make my most interesting worldbuilding be stuff related to my adventure.

[firelistener]

I wouldn't really say what I do fits A completely. I build a world where some interesting NPCs live and some interesting events happen, but I don't craft full stories because I let the players write the story. If they want someone from their character's backstory to pop up in the world, that's okay and I'll do that, but usually they don't bother providing that deep of a backstory.

[RedMage125]

Depends. In my home setting, I have several hooks and plots, and I would generally say (A), with the caveat that I try and work PC backstories in to things like side quests and into the main narrative whenever appropriate.

When I run Eberron (which will hopefully be soon), I like to ask my players what kind of game they want to play, BEFORE they make characters. After all, if someone makes a warforged juggernaut style fighter, he may not find as much enjoyment in a noir-mystery style game, or in a pirate campaign. Once I have an idea of what kind of game, I start writing story and they start writing characters, so sort of a blend of (A) and (B).

[KorvinStarmast]

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?
That's a false dichotomy. There are a lot of other ways to approach this.

For me, C. Players make their characters and start interacting with the world. The story evolves more or less organically from that. This, for example, works fine.
In a sandboxier campaign, which I have run many of, there are a number of "big things" going on in the world that I sometimes have to play out off screen so that I can offer up clues and rumors of to the players.

What order they take challenges on is all in their hands. And some times, then end up facing problems where they need to go and find help. That becomes an adventure also.

[clash]

Combination of A & B for me. I ahve a general world and story, I find out characters backstories and integrate them into the story ina way that feels organic and makes sense.

[EggKookoo]

I build a world/setting based on some kind of premise. I flesh out (mostly for myself) lots of details about that premise. I build a very general timeline of major things (there was a "world war" X years or centuries ago, a certain race went extinct or came into existence -- very broad stuff).

From there, scenarios start to emerge that let me build the seeds of adventuring material. Factions and forces emerge that might be in conflict with each other, and the intersections of those provide opportunities. I construct "plots" of sorts in the sense that NPCs that represent those forces might be trying to do certain things to achieve their goals. Lots and lots of iteration until I work out a few reasonable paths the PCs might take to get themselves involved in such.

At some point during this process I talk to my players and get a sense of what kind of characters they want to play. It's here I'll let them know about any restrictions or setting changes I might have made, as those will be pretty well established in my mind. I let them know the general feel and tone of the campaign and get their feedback to make sure it's something they're interested in playing. I probably have lots of notes now about the setting but I don't really tell my players anything more than they need to know to make their PCs.

Based on the classes and general types of PCs the players have told me the want to play, I bend and twist some of my adventure plots to maybe make them fit the PCs a bit more. When session zero comes, we roll up PCs and I ask my "one true thing" question of each player. Each player gets to say one true thing about the setting. It can be anything, but I reserve the right to alter or reject it (and ask for another suggestion if rejected) if it conflicts irreparably with something I've set up already, or if it basically undoes or negates another player's true thing.

When creating backgrounds, I encourage each player to come up with some way or justification why their PC might know another PC. Just one, not all, but my goal is to create a chain of association. I also work with them to come up with some way for them to all be in roughly the same place, and once we do that in a way that feels organic, we begin play. I'll take one of my "plot threads" and drop it in front of them, and hope they bite. From there, we're off...

[Sariel Vailo]

I see concept story name actual class and numbers but starting with the concept.

[Laserlight]

There isn't just one story line. Typically you have a Big Story (The Imperial Peace Force locates the Rebel Terrorist Base and prepares to destroy it), plus Personal Stories (Duke Cloudrunner wants to impress the evil princess; Hand Slo-mo wants to pay off his crime boss; Been Knobby wants to corrupt Duke and lure him into becoming a hexblade, just like his dad). If Duke gets killed along the way, well, the final scene will be less "Duke gets the medal from the princess" and more "Han gets a pallet full of gold as his cash reward for blowing up the Boom Moon", but the Boom Moon still gets blown up.

[D+1]

Say you want to DM a new campaign. Would you say it is better to first,

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?

Personally, I always use option A, but I've been thinking of starting a new game sometime soon and I was curious if anybody uses option B.
A campaign that is written as centered around specific characters backstories is specifically a campaign that is NOT geared to accommodate any characters but those it was written for. If even one PC dies and is changed, or a player stops participating, or a new player joins in - the campaign by definition will stumble because it wasn't intended to work with any characters but those it started with.

On the other hand, a campaign which doesn't rely on character backstories to provide its adventures and an overall story arc, is a campaign which stands the best chance of working with the widest variety of whatever PC's the players come up with at any time.

[Corsair14]

Primary campaign arc comes first. Without a point to it there isn't much for characters to do. When I design a campaign I come up with the start up, a tie in to the main campaign. Ill use my most successful campaign in recent years for example. Theres a whole intro page, PCs exist in the real world and begin as a group of crusaders who have gotten to know each other over the years on the long march to Jerusalem. They for whatever reason didn't go in with the main assault and enter on the infamous day after. Things are kind of nutty, they find a murder and have the possibility of recognizing the victim, theres a trail to follow, they meet and rescue a priest from these zombie-like people. He tells them of a sacred book stored in a secret temple further in the city and asks them to escort them in the name of the church and like good Christians not following that request/order is a bad idea. Blah blah blah, priest betrays them, its an evil artifact, big fight, things are crazy, whats this weird mist, surprise we are standing in a fetid swamp. They do a few odds and ends, and are in Soureign which is one of the Domains of Dread in Ravenloft. The dreadlord is interested in the grimoire and tells them it has been ripped up and spread around the dark lands and while he admits to wanted it to further his own studies it also holds the key to returning them to whatever world they are from. Long story short PCs now have a goal. During this long quest they visit sages, libraries, ruins and dungeons as the artifact although new, like everything(including the people) in RL the lands adapt to make it seem like it was always here. In the process there will be unrelated side quests and dungeons the PCs can choose to go into as they learn that magic exists, struggle to learn the local languages and try and overcome their own biases against "witch craft" and non-humans + magic technology(anything that didn't exist in 1000AD).

In my opinion a proper campaign has an overarching story that the players interact in and through light prodding work their way through. It should also have interesting side quests and enough tangent activities for PCs to do their own thing. I personally think it should have an intro sheet to point directions for players to make their characters. Full blown everything has its place but I typically don't have them in mine. This is especially true for a campaign like the horror version of Stranger in a Strange Land campaign I wrote about above where you are trying to make your world have a specific vibe.

[Imbalance]

I dunno, I guess haven't been at this long enough to form a preference. So far, I ditched the rails of LMoP but have kept the milestones. Along the way, I've been tugging at each character's strings to draw them deeper into the world while establishing their back stories within the patchwork of existing lore. As they make their way, I'm accumulating more adventure options to potentially segue into next, but also expanding the sandbox. While they've barely seen Faerun's North, my Toril is evolving - rooted in published material, but also grafted with limbs from a multitude of other settings (including those of my own design). Whatever path they may choose to pursue, the fruit of this GMO Yggdrasil will be theirs.

I can plot events, no problem. I can weave anything they come up with into the setting on a whim. I can create any path to any goal before, during, or after the main adventure. But the story isn't mine. The story is what will have happened; not what was supposed to happen.

[CapnWildefyr]

I side more with the story arc first group. Of course you customize around the characters as they explore, but as several others said, just dont center it around one character. That leaves everyone else out.

My add to this discussion: encourage the players to be a little sketchy in their backgrounds. Some players write minimalist backgrounds that are almost too thin-- 'I'm a goliath from the Galena Mountains.' But some will write every little detail down. That's nice but then you have no hooks as a DM. When someone is not just an orphan, but they've detailed exactly how and when each parent died, who did it, what happened to them, who the PC met along the way to revenge, etc etc, it just means that YOU can't use that as a hook or story arc. And then do you write in every player's background villains in whatever towns they imagined them in? Less is more sometimes--you can blend in replacement character better, too.

[CNagy]

Strictly speaking, story. Improvisation/plot revisions can come later from inspiration generated by player character backstories and their in-game choices, but when I tell friends "hey, I've got a new campaign to run" it means that I have a complete structure of an adventure/set of adventures ready to go. Then, in the pregame (which apparently is now called session zero?) I explain the setting, the common history, the locals, the basic geography, etc, as well as the expected end-level range and any house rules for the campaign. Then players have an idea of what fits into the setting and what doesn't, and they can definitely choose to be more of an outsider (stranger in a strange land) but at least it is an informed choice.

[JoeJ]

Say you want to DM a new campaign. Would you say it is better to first,

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?

Personally, I always use option A, but I've been thinking of starting a new game sometime soon and I was curious if anybody uses option B.

One of the prime advantages of A that it lets the players create characters who do make sense in the story. This doesn't just apply to their backstories: a drow gloom stalker in a campaign that revolves around pirates on the high seas is probably a bad choice. If a certain race/class/background/whatever means the character is going to be relegated to being the sidekick, I want to let the player know that up front.

That said, however, I prefer a recursive process. I'll create the overall campaign theme (fighting pirates in a quasi-classical era Mediterranean, for example). The players create characters to fit that theme. Then I'll come up with specific adventure starts based on those characters. The PCs respond however they choose, and I determine what happens as a result of their choices. That presents the PCs with more choices to make, and so forth. (So it's really kind of a sandbox within the borders set by the campaign theme.)

[KorvinStarmast]

hat said, however, I prefer a recursive process. I'll create the overall campaign theme (fighting pirates in a quasi-classical era Mediterranean, for example). The players create characters to fit that theme. Then I'll come up with specific adventure starts based on those characters. The PCs respond however they choose, and I determine what happens as a result of their choices. That presents the PCs with more choices to make, and so forth. (So it's really kind of a sandbox within the borders set by the campaign theme.) that's a great technique.

[GreyBlack]

Neither. Design the dungeon first. From the dungeon, you then build the story (why are the players going here?) and then build the characters. (Who lives around here?)

From there, you can then tell your PC'S what story you have ready and how they might want to build their characters, and then work their backstories into the greater story.

[Corran]

Neither. Design the dungeon first. From the dungeon, you then build the story (why are the players going here?) and then build the characters. (Who lives around here?)

From there, you can then tell your PC'S what story you have ready and how they might want to build their characters, and then work their backstories into the greater story.
It's useful knowing what kind of characters the pc's will be, cause then you have some idea about how you'll motivate them to go into the dungeon. Listening to their character ideas while also knowing what you want to do, also allows you to advise them to change things that you don't think you can incorporate easily (usually a problem with very elaborate backstories). I am saying all this because as a player, I wouldn't want to know what kind of story lies ahead (for example, I don't want to know that the first session will involve going into the local mine to fight invading goblins; instead, I would like to figure this out in character). I would only like from the DM to give me the general tone of the camapaign and a few details about the game world, so that I can play something that doesn't just fit, but that is also relevant with what is going on ideally. That's might be what you meant, but still, I wanted to expand on it.

[Tanarii]

Determine setting and/or adventure path / modules first, build characters second. If you want to write a story about your character, that's on you the player. Do it in whatever order you like as part of character building. My only requirement for characters as a 5e DM is that you explicitly list personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw). AFAIAC stories are something that happens when you tell someone else about your adventures.

[GreyBlack]

It's useful knowing what kind of characters the pc's will be, cause then you have some idea about how you'll motivate them to go into the dungeon. Listening to their character ideas while also knowing what you want to do, also allows you to advise them to change things that you don't think you can incorporate easily (usually a problem with very elaborate backstories). I am saying all this because as a player, I wouldn't want to know what kind of story lies ahead (for example, I don't want to know that the first session will involve going into the local mine to fight invading goblins; instead, I would like to figure this out in character). I would only like from the DM to give me the general tone of the camapaign and a few details about the game world, so that I can play something that doesn't just fit, but that is also relevant with what is going on ideally. That's might be what you meant, but still, I wanted to expand on it.

I don't disagree that you communicate with your players what the general tone etc. is. You should probably tell your players that you have, for example, a wilderness survival story ready, or a social intrigue story ready. Ideally at session 0, you're talking to them and asking about what characters they might want to play. I just don't agree with the idea that, as DM, you should completely cater to the character's whims.

As a player, too? I've personally found my most successful characters are those who I don't come in with a backstory ready. I just kinda come in with maybe a single character trait that can be worked into a game (e.g. "Cult killed family", "Survival at all costs", "Thinks he's a bear") and then playing off the DM to see how it works. From there, I've found that either I can just do my own think (my Survivalist character didn't really interact with the story in a deep way, but he got along great with the party and made sure he kept them alive while they kept him alive) or the DM works their story in (like when my ex-cultist got to destroy the cult and marry the goddess they were keeping).

Soooooooo... to your point, I think it's a good idea to talk to your players about the kind of game you're running, but also for players to recognize sometimes having in depth characterizations might lead to more heartbreak than it's worth, and to let your characters develop naturally as they interact with the plot and weave in their past with that of the story.

[HappyDaze]

I've always believed that the DM should set the guidelines for the campaign first and players should then make characters within those guidelines. After that, the DM should consider the characters that the players have made and how it will influence any major story/plot that was intended. So really, it starts with the DM and ends with the DM, but the players have their time in the middle of the sandwich.

[Randomthom]

I can't recall which but one of Matt Colville's videos goes into this question in-depth. He compares his own campaign with Critical Role suggesting that CritRole is mostly focusing on resolving character backstory while his own focuses more on the central plot of his world.

He explicitly states numerous times that neither is wrong and that the most important point (and I'm paraphrasing him here) is to communicate to your players what sort of campaign this is likely to be. If your players definitely want one over the other then I'd suggest running that type of game, if you're unsure or they're unsure, just be clear about what you've got planned.

I just had session 0.5 last night (most character creation was already done so we had a short chat about things then got started) for my new campaign. I stated in both written form a two weeks before and again verbally last night that if players want their character's backstories to be addressed they would be well-advised to keep them close to the central themes of the campaign as I have described them.

e.g. My central themes mention nothing about demons so if you want to be raiding the lower planes looking for your long-lost-love then sorry, you've brought the wrong character to this game. They do say plenty about slavery, racial tensions, autocratic rule by a tyrant and rebellion so if your character wants to be the Breaker of Chains™ or the spark that will light the fire of resistance™ we can work with that.

My players have responded positively, seem excited about their characters and have backstories that I can work in without having to detour massively from the themes of the campaign. I can lead them on an adventure and still make time to put their characters in the spotlight.

[Darkstar952]

I tend to build a general world overview with many groups/factions/locations in it, but no plots created (though maybe a few ideas already brewing).

I then in session 0 give the players a brief on the world setting, we discuss the type of game/theme/tone they/I are interested in and agree one for the game. Do we want it to be fairly mercenary, or bold heroes, political, survival etc. Based on these decisions the players create their characters and backstory to fit in with both the world and the agreed theme.

I then integrate the details from their character creation into the world building, then I finally begin laying out a plot based on the agreed theme/tone of the game, and knowledge of their characters to help key the hooks to them.

So the players have input and some idea of the kind of theme/tone to expect but no actual plot details meaning they still have to discover it in character.

[Asmotherion]

Say you want to DM a new campaign. Would you say it is better to first,

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?

Personally, I always use option A, but I've been thinking of starting a new game sometime soon and I was curious if anybody uses option B.

B is better if you have players already dedicated to the campain. i've multiple times formed an adventure around the PC's bacstorys only for the players to drop the character a few sessions latter. it leaves a bitter feeling.

i default to A unless the players invest heavily in the campain and thus i'd include B.

[Arkhios]

Neither. But especially not B. Never B. Ever.

If you plan a whole campaign arc around a pc, I bet you that 99 out of 100 DM's wont allow this pc to get killed. At least until the arc plays out. Imo, this is the most boring way to play dnd.

I mean, I kinda agree on this, but then again, it would be interesting to see how the option B would play out.

I could see that if the players were given complete freedom in writing up their characters' backstories, the GM could actually create the world around their individual choices.
In the end, everything can be made to conform. It would just take a bit more work on the GM's part. It's definitely possible that the world would become weird, but how much weirder could it be than Discworld? :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

AFAIAC stories are something that happens when you tell someone else about your adventures. That's how most of our early D&D campaigns went. There would be a few major bad guys, or major quests, but the story came from what we did. And in those days, you did run across a lot of random monsters/NPC's who could change a story a bit if they dropped neat treasure or ended up being friendly.
I've always believed that the DM should set the guidelines for the campaign first and players should then make characters within those guidelines.
After that, the DM should consider the characters that the players have made and how it will influence any major story/plot that was intended.
So really, it starts with the DM and ends with the DM, but the players have their time in the middle of the sandwich. A feedback loop. Works.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

A-ish?

I tend to write an over-arcing set of goals. (IE There are four crystals that are anchors of the world and have gone dark due to 4 great beasts corrupting them. These beasts are sent from the past by an evil Knight whom the players will face as their first boss).

But it's always very high level and vague with the exception of the very first session which I usually plot fairly detailed.

I then let my players write whatever they want, but I do add the caveat that they only write what their characters would know. (IE if they're an exhiled Noble who ran when his city was attacked, he might know the Names of the invaders, but he doesn't know the details that they're vampires or exactly who they are, or what actually happened to his family).

By limiting character backstories to what the character knows the DM has a LOT more leeway to weeve them into the story and even provide surprises for the PCs.

[Corran]

I mean, I kinda agree on this, but then again, it would be interesting to see how the option B would play out.

I could see that if the players were given complete freedom in writing up their characters' backstories, the GM could actually create the world around their individual choices.
In the end, everything can be made to conform. It would just take a bit more work on the GM's part. It's definitely possible that the world would become weird, but how much weirder could it be than Discworld? :smallbiggrin:
I think it's actually easier on the DM, as characters' backstories can already act as a base for the story (if they are elaborate enough, they can even be the story). I've played in one such campaign actually.
The basic premise was that the characters are working together to revive a powerful organization that crumbled due to betrayal some 20 years before the camapaign started, and the characters are doing that because their parents or mentors were leading figures in that organization. Throw in a bit of treasure hunting (as we were also looking to find the scattered objects that when combined they could open the vault doors of the hidden and long lost treasury of the organization). Throw in a bit of intrigue, as we could never really be sure which of the allies we recruited were actually trying to help or were planning to betray us (as there were a few surviving leading figures of the organization that essentially tried to do access the vault, including the anti-party that essentially tried to do the same thing as the pc's but for their own ends). It was an interesting premise, since it gave a strong reason for the pc's to band together, and it also gave them a strong motivation to pursue the main story path.

Here was the root of the problem. We went too deep into our backstories, to the point that they spawned villains and campaigns arcs revolved around them. For example, if one of the key-parts is in the possession of the warlord's uncle, who was the one who betrayed and had the warlord's parents killed and now lives comfortably in the warlord's family castle (lion king rip off), then naturally everyone wants the warlord pc to be there when this arc plays out. When the DM wants pretty bad for the pc's to survive the challenges, it can create problems. And this is how the problem manifested. Pc's wouldn't die. Characters' death would be either completely undone (it was just a flesh wound!), or something would happen at the last minute to completely undo a coming losing outcome (one time we got spared for no reason at all). Granted, this didn't happen all that often, but considering how the DM liked to throw very tough fights against the group, it was something that would happen every now and then. Even out of combat, NPC's would always go easy on our pc's. There was simply no way that an NPC would kill one of the pc's, no matter how provoked and no matter if there was actually any reason to do so. For example, at some point in the campaign the pc's were in a city (can't remember which city it was -from FR-, but it was a big city, with a queen, and army, everything really, it was a proper city) that came under attack by a force of mercenaries (actually the mercenaries were using their main force to create a distraction, so that a small force of them could access the queen's vault and steal the key-part we had come to negotiate for). We helped in a fight against a big group of mercenaries in the city's central square. Very successfully and heroically, but that does not justify that after the fight was over we plunged a flag at the square claiming it for ourselves (granted, this was done at a point where we had stopped giving a damn about consequences on our characters; and this wasn't done by some new players, but by people that had been playing dnd for more than a decade; and while each one of us was more than capable for doing foolish things with their characters, such extremes were far from typical behavior). The sternest reaction we got was ''let's talk about this''. When you realize that your character wont die, no matter what, you stop giving a damn and start doing silly things. Cause the alternative is pure boredom (at the very least there is no real reason to play the fights).

Ironically enough this campaign ended with a TPK.

The point is, if you give the DM enough reason to get invested in the successes of the pc's (such as by having backstories be the backbone of the campaign), then you might stop enjoying, or rather, suffering the consequences of your character's actions. And imo, that's a very boring way to play dnd.

[prabe]

I usually tell the players what the starting point will be (place and time), ask for backstories, tell them to please make their characters the sorts of people who'd be there, then (specifically in one case, the sorts of people who'd go to a place on a certain date, because a letter specifically addressed to them, personally, and waiting for them in a place they more-or-less wandered to, asked them to be there, then). Stuff happens in first session to both cause the party to come together and kick off a story arc (which may or may not interact with their backstories). Backstories come into play later, if the characters pursue them. I have never run a successful campaign where I thought I knew more than the beginning of the next session at the end of the last; trying to shoehorn a campaign into a planned overall arc just doesn't work for me. Then again, neither do published adventures.

[Alhallor]

I always start with A, so I have a red string that the characters can follow, when they get more accomodated they may do their own things, while I still sprinkle in possibilitys to follow an overarching plot if they want to, but I won't punish them if they don't want to.

In my most recent campaign im DMing it worked really well and most of the plot I throw the charactes way they actually want to pursue themselves instead of "okay it's a plot hook, we should follow that" and that feels like a great achievement.

[Max_Killjoy]

Say you want to DM a new campaign. Would you say it is better to first,

A) Write the campaign's story, then when the players tell you about their characters, insert them into the narrative, even if their backstories may not make sense with it, or

B) Find out about the character backstories, then write the campaign centered around those stories so the players feel more involved, even if it limits some of your creative freedom?

Personally, I always use option A, but I've been thinking of starting a new game sometime soon and I was curious if anybody uses option B.


0) Discuss potential campaign idea with potential players, find out who would be on board and interested.
1) Detail the setting, and choose the system, as a combined process.
2) Establish what's going on in the world in at least broad strokes without the players present
3) Present detailed setting documents to players, discuss characters and origin/backstory for each PC, figure out how / make sure they fit in the world.
4) Actual PC creation and integration, start the campaign.
5 to X) Play the campaign.

Y) Any "story" is an incidental after-the-fact result of the characters' actions and interactions, focused on the PCs but never ignoring the NPCs. The characters are not "living a story" any more than real people are when they get out of bed in the morning... stories are told about what they did if what they did is worthy of stories.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I guess I usually go with a blend of A and B, and it depends on how the campaign comes together. I try to start by coming up with a premise for the campaign, as a group with the players. As we narrow down the style and premise, I start thinking about where the campaign arc could be leading. Then I can ask for characters with the right kinds of motivations for the adventures I'm hoping to put in their way. Then, when I have the characters, I work to develop side plots and twists in the main plot that pull on the backgrounds and motivations of the individual characters. And I don't so much write a single campaign story so much as I think about ways to escalate the campaign through the tiers of play.

In practice, I get some characters pitched at the same time as the premise is being formed, and others come together right before we start playing, so I usually just prep a generic opening adventure to get started with. My long-term plans are nebulous enough that they shift dramatically in response to what the players do in the early parts of the campaign, before those plots make it to play.

Ultimately, I just try to make sure the players almost always have several clear goals they can choose to pursue, options for how to pursue them, and the freedom to explore the world and create their own goals. Sometimes there is one clearly pressing goal, but I want them to have enough options that they can just pass by something that doesn't sound like what they want to play. It's also fun to look back later and talk about what the campaign would have looked like if they'd chosen to focus on something else; it highlights the impact their choices can have on the shape of the campaign.

[KorvinStarmast]

0) Discuss potential campaign idea with potential players, find out who would be on board and interested.
1) Detail the setting, and choose the system, as a combined process.
2) Establish what's going on in the world in at least broad strokes without the players present
3) Present detailed setting documents to players, discuss characters and origin/backstory for each PC, figure out how / make sure they fit in the world.
4) Actual PC creation and integration, start the campaign.
5 to X) Play the campaign.

Y) Any "story" is an incidental after-the-fact result of the characters' actions and interactions, focused on the PCs but never ignoring the NPCs. The characters are not "living a story" any more than real people are when they get out of bed in the morning... stories are told about what they did if what they did is worthy of stories.That method sounds really familiar.

[GreyBlack]

I'm not gonna lie. I'm kinda curious how a completely character focused campaign would even work. Like, seriously; I'm wondering how the logistics here would even work. I kinda want to experiment with this. Hmmmmmmmmm.....