Characters' place in a campaign: How do you fit characters into your adventure? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Characters' place in a campaign: How do you fit characters into your adventure?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
ryklu
Sep 04, 2011 15:38:01 Here's the question: When designing campaigns or adventures, do you build the story around the Player Characters (their races, classes, alignments, and backstories), or do you have the players build their characters around your story?

I am aware that other options do exist, but these should serve as two good extremes for the purpose of this dilemma.

My adventures are built around the players' characters. The general story doesn't change much, but the solutions to the adventure's component quests are geared directly toward the characters that are currently experiencing the story.

Feedback I've received from this approach is as follows: the story feels too streamlined, the characters' ability to explore is lessened because the story pulls everything forward, and character choice is minimalized because opportunity seems to find the PCs.

However, I am currently playing in an adventure (homebrewed, not published) that does not take into account the player classes, races, or backstories. The adventure is open-ended, the PCs' sense of direction and forward movement is reduced or absent, and the situations and villains we encounter are abstract to the point of random design.

So, how do you build your adventures? Do you prefer one of these approaches over the other? If so, why?
#2
Detoxifier
Sep 04, 2011 22:31:29
First I'd like to start with a disclaimer, the Group that I play and DM for doesn't appear to meet the normal standards of D&D players. Most of us are varied roleplayers and can adapt from playing a Nuetral good Cleric who has taken a vow of nonviolence to a sadistic serial torturer in a single night. Sometimes we build a group composed exclusively of Dwarves who have no intention of harming one another-unless it be over women or ale-and sometimes we build disparate groups united by a drive for gold and will kill, betray, or sacrifice one another readily-sometimes in the same campaign. Our group tends to consider morality and ethics silly ideologies that other people engage in, we roleplay-in whatever direction it takes us, and we have a hell of a time doing it. If your group has a very different attitude about cooperation or PC on PC violence then what I am about to say may not apply to your group.

When I set out to build a campaign I build a sandbox with a timeline. There are a series of events being set in motion that will occur with or without the PC's-however, their direct intervention or actions may avert, alter, or change the outcome of said events. I don't make this too time critical, I make sure that I leave ample time between each "Guided session" for sandbox time. I leave it up to the players whether they choose to participate, and how they choose to participate. In my games cooperation is not meta-game enforced, if I choose to attempt to force cooperation ( I often don't) I do it through environmental factors-(cooperate or suffer the consequences).

My games are essentially divided into "guided sessions" or quests the PC's partake in, "Sandbox time" where players are able to act freely within an environment (usually a pretty open one, such as a whole city), and tangents, which usually contain player backstory, side quests related to character development or PC curiousity, etc.

I have been developing a world known as Vega for more than 10 years. So I have hundreds of NPCs, maps, environments, dungeons, story arcs, and a world timeline. It is a very large world, most of which remains unexplored so with each new campaign I build upon what my players already know and it allows me to quickly set the flavor of the game.

I allow my players to send me notes in secret, to have their own story developing tangently to the campaign story, and in anonymity if they so choose. In my games I encourage a great deal of roleplay and story development at the individual level. Part of the fun of our games with one another is trying to discover not only the myster the DM is weaving, but the agendas of the other players within that context. As so, I allow PC on PC violence, PC non-cooperation, solo quests, group splitting, PC's stealing from PC's, and every dirty trick in the book. Part of this is because my players revel in it and are quick to fill gaps in my campaign with their own stories and activities, if you feel your players may not make much use of such sandbox time it may be better to limit it.

#3
Rhineglade_
Sep 05, 2011 7:19:04 It is a cardinal rule for me to let the players build their characters around my story. In fact, I feel it only adds to their personal development as players AND lets them exercise some of their creativity as well. I lay out out the ground work in terms of geography, history and mythology. They can then pick and choose as they see fit.

For example, in a campaign I once ran, I had your stereotypical Otherworldly elf island. I had a player want to be an elf and she decided that this elf was a mystical sort who originated from this island but roams the continent seeking adventure. Based on the folklore I provided for the elven pantheon, she was able to present an interesting and well-rounded character and I think she really enjoyed the creative aspect of it.
#4
slobo777a
Sep 05, 2011 10:23:03 In the last adventure (now closing off after 6 months weekly play), we negotiated out the backgrounds and story improv style, until we had something I could take away and work on.

I started by presenting a map of the world, and briefly described areas that players expressed an interest in.

The players chose where their characters came from. Two of them suggested they already knew each other and were on a quest for an "Arcane Brotherhood".

I asked more about their quest, and how the other PCs might have met theirs.

We carried on in this kind of freeform background workshop vein until the PCs had a place in the world, a mission to accomplish, and how they met each other.

It was the most productive and fun way I have started an adventure so far, and I intend to do it again.
#5
ryklu
Sep 05, 2011 11:19:30 These are all good and much appreciated responses.

By focusing on the story first, the adventure and the various plot hooks and momentous scenes remain in place while the adventurers--regardless of their background and such--move through the story. That's a good factor to keep in mind.

@Detoxifier: I generally avoid sandbox-based designs due to the randomness that ensues; I'd much prefer to maintain a balance of positive control as the DM while the PCs feel as though their characters contribute directly to the overall story's progression. However, I definitely see the appeal of a sandbox-design campaign; the DM I'm currently playing with uses a similar approach, but his setting doesn't use the persistent story development that runs concurrent to the players' actions, so the players tend to feel lost. If he were to use the idea you have established, I think his setting and adventure could improve.

@Rhineglade_ and Slobo777a: Intertwining the character backgrounds with the story while allowing the story to take precedence sounds like a great way to move things along while balancing player interest with the DM's narrative. By involving the players in the story's progress and direction, you have created a design philosophy that pulls people toward the story and propels the action forward; I'll definitely look to use a similar idea when I DM again.
#6
sirkaikillah
Sep 05, 2011 13:08:11 As a player, I am not a fan of the sandbox design philosphy. I always start feeling lost and inevitable end up feeling railroaded as the Dm desperatly tries to rein in the Pcs and their individual incompatible goals and start the adventure they have designed to be the introduction of the campaign anyway.

I always start the campaign with a focus. The focus at the start of the campaign may be as small as stop the boggle kidnappers or as grande as stop the far realm invasion of the cosmos. But as a Dm I always have a focus for the start of the campaign. A focus to the campaign, gives the players a focus for thier Pcs lending to a more cohesive group.

As a group we spend at least one game session developing Pcs and Pcs' backgrounds together. I work with players developing significant NPcs, i.e. family members, friends and mentors, and finding them a place within the campaign world. I encourage players to mesh thier Pcs background with relationships with the same siginificant NPCs and one another. Every Pc knows at least one other Pc in the group well enough to go on a death defying quest with that Pc. As a Dm, I develop campaign hooks, villians, quests, places and possible Pc allies, meshing the campaigns starting focus and Pcs' backgrounds, personal goals and motivations.

If I do not have an overall campaign focus like defeat the far realm invasion, then I have a smaller focus and campaign goal, like stop the boggle kidnappers to start the campaign. After that first campaign is accomplished I shift focus of the campaign developing other hooks and adventures arround Pc motivations and goals. Ussually by then players know the other Pcs and are willing to set thier Pcs on adventures furthering the personal goals of other Pcs. At least I hope. Regardless as Dm, I focus the campaign, I give a lot of consideration to Pcs goals and try to get my players invested creativly in the campaign by drawing on there Pcs' background for adventures, quests, allies and villians.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ryklu Sep 04, 2011 15:38:01	Here's the question: When designing campaigns or adventures, do you build the story around the Player Characters (their races, classes, alignments, and backstories), or do you have the players build their characters around your story? I am aware that other options do exist, but these should serve as two good extremes for the purpose of this dilemma. My adventures are built around the players' characters. The general story doesn't change much, but the solutions to the adventure's component quests are geared directly toward the characters that are currently experiencing the story. Feedback I've received from this approach is as follows: the story feels too streamlined, the characters' ability to explore is lessened because the story pulls everything forward, and character choice is minimalized because opportunity seems to find the PCs. However, I am currently playing in an adventure (homebrewed, not published) that does not take into account the player classes, races, or backstories. The adventure is open-ended, the PCs' sense of direction and forward movement is reduced or absent, and the situations and villains we encounter are abstract to the point of random design. So, how do you build your adventures? Do you prefer one of these approaches over the other? If so, why?
#2 Detoxifier Sep 04, 2011 22:31:29	First I'd like to start with a disclaimer, the Group that I play and DM for doesn't appear to meet the normal standards of D&D players. Most of us are varied roleplayers and can adapt from playing a Nuetral good Cleric who has taken a vow of nonviolence to a sadistic serial torturer in a single night. Sometimes we build a group composed exclusively of Dwarves who have no intention of harming one another-unless it be over women or ale-and sometimes we build disparate groups united by a drive for gold and will kill, betray, or sacrifice one another readily-sometimes in the same campaign. Our group tends to consider morality and ethics silly ideologies that other people engage in, we roleplay-in whatever direction it takes us, and we have a hell of a time doing it. If your group has a very different attitude about cooperation or PC on PC violence then what I am about to say may not apply to your group. When I set out to build a campaign I build a sandbox with a timeline. There are a series of events being set in motion that will occur with or without the PC's-however, their direct intervention or actions may avert, alter, or change the outcome of said events. I don't make this too time critical, I make sure that I leave ample time between each "Guided session" for sandbox time. I leave it up to the players whether they choose to participate, and how they choose to participate. In my games cooperation is not meta-game enforced, if I choose to attempt to force cooperation ( I often don't) I do it through environmental factors-(cooperate or suffer the consequences). My games are essentially divided into "guided sessions" or quests the PC's partake in, "Sandbox time" where players are able to act freely within an environment (usually a pretty open one, such as a whole city), and tangents, which usually contain player backstory, side quests related to character development or PC curiousity, etc. I have been developing a world known as Vega for more than 10 years. So I have hundreds of NPCs, maps, environments, dungeons, story arcs, and a world timeline. It is a very large world, most of which remains unexplored so with each new campaign I build upon what my players already know and it allows me to quickly set the flavor of the game. I allow my players to send me notes in secret, to have their own story developing tangently to the campaign story, and in anonymity if they so choose. In my games I encourage a great deal of roleplay and story development at the individual level. Part of the fun of our games with one another is trying to discover not only the myster the DM is weaving, but the agendas of the other players within that context. As so, I allow PC on PC violence, PC non-cooperation, solo quests, group splitting, PC's stealing from PC's, and every dirty trick in the book. Part of this is because my players revel in it and are quick to fill gaps in my campaign with their own stories and activities, if you feel your players may not make much use of such sandbox time it may be better to limit it.
#3 Rhineglade_ Sep 05, 2011 7:19:04	It is a cardinal rule for me to let the players build their characters around my story. In fact, I feel it only adds to their personal development as players AND lets them exercise some of their creativity as well. I lay out out the ground work in terms of geography, history and mythology. They can then pick and choose as they see fit. For example, in a campaign I once ran, I had your stereotypical Otherworldly elf island. I had a player want to be an elf and she decided that this elf was a mystical sort who originated from this island but roams the continent seeking adventure. Based on the folklore I provided for the elven pantheon, she was able to present an interesting and well-rounded character and I think she really enjoyed the creative aspect of it.
#4 slobo777a Sep 05, 2011 10:23:03	In the last adventure (now closing off after 6 months weekly play), we negotiated out the backgrounds and story improv style, until we had something I could take away and work on. I started by presenting a map of the world, and briefly described areas that players expressed an interest in. The players chose where their characters came from. Two of them suggested they already knew each other and were on a quest for an "Arcane Brotherhood". I asked more about their quest, and how the other PCs might have met theirs. We carried on in this kind of freeform background workshop vein until the PCs had a place in the world, a mission to accomplish, and how they met each other. It was the most productive and fun way I have started an adventure so far, and I intend to do it again.
#5 ryklu Sep 05, 2011 11:19:30	These are all good and much appreciated responses. By focusing on the story first, the adventure and the various plot hooks and momentous scenes remain in place while the adventurers--regardless of their background and such--move through the story. That's a good factor to keep in mind. @Detoxifier: I generally avoid sandbox-based designs due to the randomness that ensues; I'd much prefer to maintain a balance of positive control as the DM while the PCs feel as though their characters contribute directly to the overall story's progression. However, I definitely see the appeal of a sandbox-design campaign; the DM I'm currently playing with uses a similar approach, but his setting doesn't use the persistent story development that runs concurrent to the players' actions, so the players tend to feel lost. If he were to use the idea you have established, I think his setting and adventure could improve. @Rhineglade_ and Slobo777a: Intertwining the character backgrounds with the story while allowing the story to take precedence sounds like a great way to move things along while balancing player interest with the DM's narrative. By involving the players in the story's progress and direction, you have created a design philosophy that pulls people toward the story and propels the action forward; I'll definitely look to use a similar idea when I DM again.
#6 sirkaikillah Sep 05, 2011 13:08:11	As a player, I am not a fan of the sandbox design philosphy. I always start feeling lost and inevitable end up feeling railroaded as the Dm desperatly tries to rein in the Pcs and their individual incompatible goals and start the adventure they have designed to be the introduction of the campaign anyway. I always start the campaign with a focus. The focus at the start of the campaign may be as small as stop the boggle kidnappers or as grande as stop the far realm invasion of the cosmos. But as a Dm I always have a focus for the start of the campaign. A focus to the campaign, gives the players a focus for thier Pcs lending to a more cohesive group. As a group we spend at least one game session developing Pcs and Pcs' backgrounds together. I work with players developing significant NPcs, i.e. family members, friends and mentors, and finding them a place within the campaign world. I encourage players to mesh thier Pcs background with relationships with the same siginificant NPCs and one another. Every Pc knows at least one other Pc in the group well enough to go on a death defying quest with that Pc. As a Dm, I develop campaign hooks, villians, quests, places and possible Pc allies, meshing the campaigns starting focus and Pcs' backgrounds, personal goals and motivations. If I do not have an overall campaign focus like defeat the far realm invasion, then I have a smaller focus and campaign goal, like stop the boggle kidnappers to start the campaign. After that first campaign is accomplished I shift focus of the campaign developing other hooks and adventures arround Pc motivations and goals. Ussually by then players know the other Pcs and are willing to set thier Pcs on adventures furthering the personal goals of other Pcs. At least I hope. Regardless as Dm, I focus the campaign, I give a lot of consideration to Pcs goals and try to get my players invested creativly in the campaign by drawing on there Pcs' background for adventures, quests, allies and villians.