When launching a new campaign, I try not to overprepare. I begin with a broad concept or locale, often something quite minimal, like a regional map, a few factions, or even just a handful of evocative ideas. I don’t want to box myself in too early or create the illusion that the campaign has a “plot.” Instead, I focus on a starting situation with open-ended possibilities.
For example, when I began the House of Worms campaign, I gave the players a simple premise: they were junior clan members on an assignment from their elders in the bustling city of Sokátis. That was it. From there, we started to explore Tékumel together and nearly everything in the campaign developed organically from that starting point. Those early sessions were a kind of calibration, helping me learn where the players’ interests lay, what kinds of challenges engaged them, and in what directions they wanted to go.
So, early on in any campaign, I focus less on outcomes and more on possibilities: rumors, locations, hooks, and the movements of important NPCs. I try to offer meaningful choices from the beginning and avoid pushing the players in any particular direction. That’s why I usually use the word referee rather than game master. I see my role as that of a neutral adjudicator of player decisions, not the director of a pre-planned story.
This is foundational to what distinguishes old school RPG play from many of its later descendants. I don’t write scripts. I don’t plan story arcs. What I do is keep track of the world and what’s going on within it. I try to treat it like a living place, where NPCs and factions pursue their goals regardless of what the player characters do. That means I maintain a brief set of notes on major players and what they’re up to behind the scenes. When the PCs intervene, those plans might change. When they don’t, the plans proceed. Over time, this creates the impression of a responsive, persistent world. It also generates future material automatically. When the characters return to a location months later, they’ll find that things have changed. I don’t need to know “what happens next.” I just need to know what’s already in motion.
Reuse and Recycle
I rarely throw anything away. Abandoned adventure seeds, unused NPCs, discarded locations all go back into the toolbox. Long campaigns are full of unexpected turns and something irrelevant in session 10 might acquire sudden significance in session 85. Players, I’ve found, are especially good at reviving old material. They remember a strange artifact or an NPC they met in passing and decide they want to follow up. When that happens, I run with it. I can pull out my notes, rework them a bit, and reintroduce the material with minimal effort. I also try to repurpose my prep across sessions. I might reuse the same map with slight modifications, though I’ll admit, it hasn’t always gone unnoticed. A defeated adversary might return with new motivations and goals. I treat the campaign like a compost heap: nothing is wasted, everything breaks down, and over time it becomes fertile soil for something new.
If you were to look at the piles of paper on my desk and shelves, you’d see that my campaign notes are messy. (Yes, I still use paper; I’m old.) But they serve their purpose. I focus only on the most important details, such as what happened recently, what major NPCs are doing, and what potential developments are still active. I’m not writing a novel, so I don’t need exhaustive recaps. What I need are reminders: what changed last session, what threads the players are following, and what might happen next if nothing interferes. After each session, I spend a few minutes updating these notes. Just ten minutes of scribbling down events and adjusting NPC status can go a long way toward keeping the world coherent and responsive. I also maintain a running list of future developments. These aren’t predictions; they're more like a menu of possibilities. This keeps me flexible while still being (somewhat) prepared.
This is a big part of how I’ve kept campaigns going: I reward player initiative with more material. If a player takes an interest in an NPC, I flesh that character out. If they pursue a particular goal or locale, I give them opportunities to do so. In this way, the players shape a lot of the campaign’s direction and even parts of the setting. I see my job as referee as more about expanding and refining what they care about rather than inventing new material from scratch. This approach keeps players engaged and takes a lot of the creative burden off me. When a campaign hits its stride, it feels more like a collaboration than a performance. Everyone is invested. Everyone is contributing.
Keep the Flame Lit
Finally, I try to keep the fire burning between sessions, if only a little. For all of my current campaigns, I have a dedicated Discord server. I post information, rumors, and questions for the players to consider between sessions. I follow up on unresolved plans. I drop hints about future developments. These aren’t elaborate, just enough to keep the campaign present in the players’ minds. A long campaign is like a slow-burning fire. You don’t need to stoke it constantly, but it needs a steady trickle of oxygen to keep going. This between-session activity also helps me gauge interest. If players respond eagerly to something I post, I know I’ve struck a chord. If not, I pivot and try something else.
In the End
By now, you’ve probably noticed that I don’t do a lot of prep in the traditional sense. Instead, I’ve tried to adopt and maintain a few good habits: stay flexible; let the world breathe; notice what the players care about; don’t panic when things go off the rails. And above all, show up and keep the game moving. Even a short session is better than none. Over time, those small sessions build into something enduring and deeply rewarding. So, these are my “secrets” to refereeing a long-running RPG campaign. They’re not revolutionary: persistence, openness, and a willingness to let the campaign grow on its own terms. If you can manage that, you may find, as I have, that years later you’re still playing, still surprised, and still eager to see what happens next.
(There will be at least one part to this series, because, in the process of writing it, I had some additional thoughts people might find valuable.)
Alright, I'll bite: if you do not prep/create a 'plot' or 'story arcs', then what is the aspect of the game that gives the players the feel that they're on a 'quest / mission', which they can either successfully complete or fail to complete ?
ReplyDeleteI use a lot of patron, something I picked up from Traveller. I should probably do a separate post on that, because I think it's got a fairly broad applicability to most RPGs.
DeleteThanks, that would be appreciated, because right now I'm less than clueless. And of course, me explicitly 'needing' a 'plot' or 'story arcs' only further emphasizes that Dragonlance ruined everything.
Delete;)
I think it depends on what is meant by "plot" or "story arc." For me, I mean a predetermined series of events aimed toward a similarly predetermined conclusion – a railroad essentially. My campaigns include lots of "plots" in the sense that there are things happening in the world that the characters can become involved in (or not), but their course and their conclusions are not inevitable.
DeletePatrons are good, although I find a good nemesis can work just as well. Not a world-threatening endboss (although they might be a minor servant of one), just someone a little too tough for the party early on but very beatable with a little advancement and clever scheming. Might not be all that dangerous personally but he's got lackeys and resources, and probably better as a rival or source of harassment than an immediate mortal danger. By the time the players beat him decisively your campaign should have grown to the point where everyone's ready to move on to other things.
DeleteI'm not convinced it's so important for the players to have a "quest" that can succeed or fail, so long as they have stuff to do and its results, whatever they may be, have a visible impact in the world. I like to dump a bunch of hooks at the players early on to get a feel for the kind of thing they bite at, and make sure that, whatever they do, it has some kind of consequence that changes things going forward. That feeling like they're "making a mark" I find keeps players engaged with the world.
DeleteAnd if you need something quick and easy to spur them to adventure, you could do a lot worse than preparing a stock of mysterious maps and dropping one into their hands. :-)
Thank you this is what I was looking for.
ReplyDeleteThank you! This is such helpful guidance, and answers questions I had (and ones I didn't know I had).
ReplyDeleteI think that's the way I try to prepare but the advice on rewarding investment is good. I also find that maintaining a website of what has happened and other info encourages player buy-in.
ReplyDeleteThat's also an excellent idea. For House of Worms, I used to have a Google Plus community dedicated to it. That disappeared when G+ did and, when I tried to recreate it, using another platform, I lost some of my enthusiasm and it fizzled.
DeleteI have my own site ... www.scorn.me.uk
DeleteI wish I was better at the world/region/city situation stuff, instead, I use a lot of modules, but I still avoid expectations of outcomes or that the players will engage with anything I present them.
ReplyDeleteI think that’s all that really matters. I’ll weave pre-written stuff into my campaign at times. The linear plot-driven module isn’t so much a problem, so long as your players have the agency to go on the adventure or not.
DeleteThe campaign however (in my opinion) needs to be free of a pre-decided plot that’s been devised by the GM. Plots will arise, given enough play, but they’ll come about as an interaction between you and the players. And that’s when the campaign comes alive.
To me, everything else is just an obligatory slog through something I’m presenting my group, in the hope they’re entertained.
BLAH!
This is how I explain it to the, “What do you mean you don’t have a plot?!?!?” crowd:
ReplyDeleteI don’t write a plot. I’m a gamer, not a writer. I create a world, thebb v players enter it. I present various factions, adventure seeds, rumors, hooks, patrons, whatever, but “I” (the GM) do not have some overarching campaign story line written. WE (the players and I) will create a plot TOGETHER! Through collaboration.
To me, that’s the whole point. I tell the guys looking to play a role in a story I’m supposed to have written to go down to the local community theater. Try out for a play….
Really fun reading about your methods. I am not so far off in mine. It really is about wanting it to keep going - I remember powering through some momentary burnout and into some really memorable session. Thinking about story or scripting I just ran an adaption of The Court of Ardor where everything was headed to one particular point but I stuck with running things as not really knowing how they might get there. It was an interesting journey. It reminds me of how your Court of Worms campaign seemed to be headed to the choice of a new Emperor no matter what else happened in campaign. It's a focus but who know how it might end up?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about how the Kólumejàlim was always intended to play a role in the campaign, even if I didn't plan out in advance how things would unfold or what its ultimate outcome might be. That's something I intend to talk about at greater length next week in a separate post.
DeleteYes, I can't wait to see if any of the ideas that you solicited for that 'contest of champions" makes their way into the story. I haven't forgotten about that post.
DeleteI've noticed a few posts here that seem to imply that there is no need for a GM to have an overarching 'plot' for a campaign. Assuming this to be true, I have a question: does this also imply that it is near-impossible to create pre-written 'adventure paths / modules', and then play them 'as-written' ? I get the impression that some people here use these products for inspiration, taking a map or an interesting NPC or something similar, but never the full product as written. The reason I wonder about this is, that it seems to me that having a pre-written adventure requires the presence of predetermined (series of) events, or else you would not have a product ? (This in contrast with a 'campaign setting' product, which describes (parts of) a world, it's inhabitants, and perhaps some important NPC's, leaving the rest up to the imagination of the GM).
ReplyDeleteIt's not impossible to do it, surely, but it's the antithesis of the "old school" play many of us prefer. "Plot-driven" campaigns like you're discussing lead the player characters along a predefined path as they follow the referee's story. Many of us here prefer what's often called a "location based" adventure, in which the referee provides the setting, its contents, and a hook to get the players started, and they decide on their own how to approach it. While the referee certainly can (indeed, probably should) have some vague ideas about how he expects the adventure to turn out, what he doesn't do is enforce that. If the players don't play how they're "supposed to," that's their prerogative.
DeleteI ran a late-2e packaged module called Reverse Dungeon once, in which the players were cast as goblins defending their lair from townsfolk and adventurers trying to drive them out. It was a cute, fun concept, but my players decided to sack the town instead of defending the lair. According to the "adventure path" model, they can't do that; if they raze or occupy the town, that derails the whole "story," and we never get to parts 2 and 3 where they play the stronger monsters deeper in the caves. I didn't run it that way, though; they wanted to sack the town, so sack the town they did, and a good time was had by all. :-)
Thank you for the reply and explanation. I think I also have heard the difference described as a 'sandbox' vs 'railroad' ? I get that it will be a different (or even better) experience for everyone (both players and the GM) if there is no story line that "has" to be followed, and everyone can just choose what to do at random. But I also get the idea that running a "location based" adventure (as you called it) will require much more (or at least different set of) skills from the GM than running an adventure that has a (store-bought) pre-defined plot, and that not every GM is creative enough and/or good enough at improvisation for the former method and thus prefer the latter. Oh, well.
DeleteThere exist plenty of "store bought" modules that are location based and have no pre-determined plot.
DeleteI find in practice a story arc develops out of the sandbox game when the players end up deciding what they care about and the DM starts focusing on that. For me I try to keep things pretty loose at that point still really following the players lead on what needs to happen (plus I hate prepping a bunch of stuff they may decide not to investigate). I think in the prescripted type adventures there can be some preplanned setpieces and payoffs that can work pretty well but it's pretty satisfying to see them work out more organically through play.
DeleteI won't be the guy who says "sandbox" play is just inheretly better than the "railroad" style; I prefer it, and I think you should give it a try if you never have, but, at the end of the day, which is better depends on you and your players. The evidence clearly indicates that there are players who love the railroad-y adventure paths; if that's what you're in to, more power to you. Having fun is what's most important, really.
DeleteYou are certainly correct that it's a completely different experience, though. My wife, who is chiefly familiar with the standard 5e railroad, was stunned by my ability to spin months of engaging sessions out of two pages of notes, some brief random rables, and a handful of maps. I could do that because I knew my setting and I allowed the players to drive the events; a 200-page hardback script would have done me no good when they ignored the hooks I presented (they did) and decided to involve themselves in political intrigues in the city instead (they did). :-)
@Etrimyn Cat: Thanks for the correction, I was unaware of that (for D&D 5e, at least). Either that, or we are using the same words to mean different things: I think I would rather describe location based "store bought" modules as 'campaign setting books' which describe (parts of) a world, a few maps of some key locations, some important NPC's, etc. but without an included story (which the GM then has to create).
Delete@lige: Thanks for the reply. I can understand how a 'sandbox' game can be more fulfilling for a GM (and the players). Though I do think that it requires the GM to be very good at certain skills (improv, creativity, etc.) that not everyone has, and therefore prefers it if that work has been done for them.
@Darien: Thanks for the reply (and for stating that neither way is better or worse than the other; and it's ultimately about having fun.). I am only familiar with the 5e railroad as well, and am equally stunned by the way some GM's are able to make things up on the spot that actually make sense for the world/situation as well. I doubt I could pull it off.
Some of the WotC 5E adventures are more location-based than plot-based. "Tomb of Annihilation", for example - although there is an overarching plot (the death curse, which the players are motivated to end, and which takes them to Chult), the actual play consists of lots of wandering around Port Nyanzaru, wandering around the jungle, wandering around the city of Omu, and wandering around the Tomb.
Delete@Anonymous: I have no experience with 5e. :)
ReplyDelete@OP: I'm struck by how many of these principles are also relevant for other endeavors.
For example, how to write a blog for the long term:
Stay Consistent
Accept the Lulls
Be Flexible
Start Loose
Reuse and Recycle
Track What Matters
Encourage (Reader) Investment
Keep the Flame Lit
Great advice!