Best Ways To Start A New Campaign

[Gauntlet]

Not sure if a conversation like this has been done before but I thought it would be a good idea to have a discussion as to what are the best ways to start a new campaign. It of course does not matter what type of campaign, Superheroes, Fantasy, Horror, Spy, Space, whatever, but what should the creator of the campaign look into so that his game has a good start.

 

My first thought is that the GM should make sure that the players he has available are interested in the type of game he is looking to start. And if not, could it still go on with some minor changes or is he/she completely off the mark.

[Duke Bushido]

Dont know if it helps, but generally I start with "thinking about putting something together for Traveller next month.  Interested?"

 

And see where the snowball rolls and how big it gets.

 

[Cancer]

In creating a new campaign, I find that a lot of genres simply don't appeal to me enough for me to do the work to run them.  For some others I have troubles making a campaign that is actually game-able, as opposed to predestined story action withe players strapped into character bodies and obliged to read a fixed script.  (I made that mistake back around the turn of this century, and I've taken great pains to avoid doing it again.)

 

Really don't like horror.  Not keen on superheroes.  In general, I am not interested in most intellectual properties (e.g., it takes intense peer pressure for me to participate in a Star Wars game).  We have a large group (usually five players, sometimes six, plus the GM du jour), and I have a difficult time making a modern spy campaign work with that big a group.  You might think I'd be able to run a space sci-fi campaign, but no, I know too much real astrophysics and way too many genre tropes there clash violently with what I know.  Fantasy is my go-to, and I can work with different power levels for the magic part, but most of what I've actually run has been Western-style high fantasy. 

 

Genres not already named ... I may be able to work with if I am allowed slapstick.

 

Only after I've decided whether I can enjoy running a game with a particular concept do I address the question of whether the players in the group would be interested in playing it.  Of the group of five plus myself plus one part-timer, all but the part-timer have been running RPGs for decades (I first started running back in 1975, e.g.).

 

Now, I haven't run anything for about five years now, but I am getting the hankerin' now that I've got time.  So I am working up a concept (and making sure I can pull it off) now but I haven't floated it in the group yet.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Cancer

[assault]

The Gaean Reach RPG has a cool setup. Everyone has a reason to want revenge on a particular guy. It's up to the players why in their specific character's case, and it's up to the GM who the guy is. (And obviously "the guy's" gender etc.)

 

It doesn't involve a lot of needless backstory - just a description of the world they are on and place they are in.

 

It still takes a bit of effort getting them in one place and getting them to know each other, but they have a common goal.

 

Shame about the rest of the game.

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Cancer said:

Genres not already named ... I may be able to work with if I am allowed slapstick.

 

You may love a STUPID Campaign, otherwise known as...

Super

Twirps

Undertaking

Personally 

Injurious

Duties

It is a Superhero based game but is like The Tick. One of the major rule changes in it is that characters do not have a BODY Characteristic, so yes, they cannot die. And of course getting the GM and other Players to laugh is how you gain XP.

[Rich McGee]

15 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

My first thought is that the GM should make sure that the players he has available are interested in the type of game he is looking to start. And if not, could it still go on with some minor changes or is he/she completely off the mark.

That goes without saying, really. If everyone at the potential table isn't at least somewhat invested in playing there's no point in proceeding.  I would suggest that the (again, potential) GM is better off consulting with the people he'd like to play with as a group before getting any ideas firmly set in his head about what he plans to run.  RPGs are better as a collaborative entertainment from word one, and feedback from everyone may inspire new ideas that a GM working in isolation hadn't considered.  You might even wind up discovering one of the players has a campaign idea in mind that you'd like to try yourself and wind up handing the GM hat off to them instead.

 

Also a good time to talk over whether the group wants to try rotating GMs between story arcs or something along those lines, maintaining some PC and worldbuilding continuity but letting different folks take the helm if they have an idea their enthusiastic about running.

[Asperion]

I like to start with Rule Zero: find players who want to play the game that you would like. If you ignore this rule,  then everyone will be attempting to make fun that the game most likely will fall apart QUICKLY. 

 

After that,  the group can (and should) create more rules and guidelines during their session Zero. 

[tkdguy]

Rule Zero is the main reason I hardly ever run a game anymore. I suggest something different to my friends, and they're not interested. They want same old same old, but I'm bored stiff with same old same old. We also disagree in genres. I'm not interested in superheroes; they don't like comedy or political intrigue. I'll happily play in a game they run, but they don't want to be the GM. So it all falls apart before anything ever starts.

[Rich McGee]

I'd rather take my chances playing with complete strangers than get stuck not playing at all with friends whose tastes no longer intersect with mine.  Admittedly, that's more of theoretical issue than an actual one over the last twenty years or so, I've had pretty good luck finding enough RPG table time to keep me busy as I get older.  Some of that comes from being willing to run demo games for people in the local community for systems I like, most of whom were just faces I'd seen around the FLGS prior to doing a demo with them but they've mostly turned into gaming friends even if I would ask them to help me move.   

[Gauntlet]

50 minutes ago, tkdguy said:

Rule Zero is the main reason I hardly ever run a game anymore. I suggest something different to my friends, and they're not interested. They want same old same old, but I'm bored stiff with same old same old. We also disagree in genres. I'm not interested in superheroes; they don't like comedy or political intrigue. I'll happily play in a game they run, but they don't want to be the GM. So it all falls apart before anything ever starts.

 

Strange, I love to put comedy, intrigue, suspense, and even sometimes horror into my Champions games. Having them just some superheroes fighting some supervillains gets pretty boring rather fast.

[Rich McGee]

1 minute ago, Gauntlet said:

Strange, I love to put comedy, intrigue, suspense, and even sometimes horror into my Champions games. Having them just some superheroes fighting some supervillains gets pretty boring rather fast.

I'm not even sure how you'd run more than a simple one-shot without including one or more of those.  Admittedly, they aren't generally going to be at the forefront of a supers campaign, but they show up plenty in actual comics, alongside mysteries, romance, and frequently some social commentary.

 

Getting back to the original topic, assuming you can find a compatible group, there's a bunch of boring pragmatic stuff to consider before starting major game prep.  Do you have a reliable place to play, or are you going online, in which case can everyone access whatever you're using for a sim?  Does anyone have allergies, addictions (looking at you, smokers) or other medical conditions that may complicate face-to-face play?  What (if any) time slots work with everyone's schedules, with everyone understanding that the game is not a distraction from work, class, or something else you ought to be paying attention to like babysitting?  Is the GM going to have to play cat-herder and remind everyone when the next game is a bit in advance or announce cancellations, or is a player willing and able to do that?  Oh, and if the place you're playing is going to have a table fee associated with it (as many game stores do), is everyone okay with paying it? 

 

That's all stuff to settle pre-session zero.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Here is an older thread about starting up a champions adventure

 

 

[Gauntlet]

Of course, a ton of it depends on your players. Do you have Storyline Players or Video Game Players?

[Asperion]

19 hours ago, Rich McGee said:

I'd rather take my chances playing with complete strangers than get stuck not playing at all with friends whose tastes no longer intersect with mine.  Admittedly, that's more of theoretical issue than an actual one over the last twenty years or so, I've had pretty good luck finding enough RPG table time to keep me busy as I get older.  Some of that comes from being willing to run demo games for people in the local community for systems I like, most of whom were just faces I'd seen around the FLGS prior to doing a demo with them but they've mostly turned into gaming friends even if I would ask them to help me move.   

 

This is a great case for those one-shots.

[Gauntlet]

I would assume that most GMs would prefer Storyline players verse Video Game players, but that is just me. It is quite possible that the GM might enjoy good combats so Video Game players may be more to his/her liking. Any GMs out there have any comments as to what type of players they like to have?

[Christopher R Taylor]

The kind of players I like to have are the ones who show up on time and keep coming back for a long term campaign.

[Rich McGee]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

Any GMs out there have any comments as to what type of players they like to have?

In an ideal world, I'd prefer to run long-lasting campaigns with a reliable player base.  In the hell we live in, I'm perfectly content to run one shots with an eye toward finding sympatico players for future campaigns, or as the occasional nostalgia game with the few old high school/college ear games left among the living.

 

Not 100% sure what you mean by "video game players" (it may sound more dismissive than intended) but there are some rule systems that are more enjoyable for combat-heavy "tactical puzzle" gaming than others.  Lancers, D&D 4e, the various Battletech RPGs and ICON all lean that way IME, which makes them good for players who are looking for that as a major component of each session.  I don't mind any of them, but I'm not sure that (other than D&D 4e) they have the long of long term appeal a system with more of a roleplaying focus does - particularly Lancer, which is really light on doing stuff out of the cockpit.  Probably depends on the folks at the table, though.  Their focus on combat has at least ensured that the fights remain interesting over time, which is more than I can say for many systems.   

[Gauntlet]

17 minutes ago, Rich McGee said:

Not 100% sure what you mean by "video game players" (it may sound more dismissive than intended) but there are some rule systems that are more enjoyable for combat-heavy "tactical puzzle" gaming than others.

 

For me personally it might have been a bit dismissive but I realize that just because I feel something is dismissive it doesn't mean that it actually is. For a Video Game player, they like tactics and combat. They aren't as into the general roleplay in between combats.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The kind of players I like to have are the ones who show up on time and keep coming back for a long term campaign.

 

In addition to what you stated, if they are not going to be able to make it, please let me know so I can run the game appropriately. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Gauntlet

[Rich McGee]

19 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

For me personally it might have been a bit dismissive but I realize that just because I feel something is dismissive it doesn't mean that it actually is. For a Video Game player, they like tactics and combat. They aren't as into the general roleplay in between combats.

I'd call that a wargamer myself.  I suppose the term's a bit dated these days, given how few people have ever even seen one of the old hex-and-counter games from SPI or AvHill or GDW these days (to name just a few).

 

Although I suspect many video gamers would quite enjoy some of the smaller offerings from that era.  Metagaming and Task Force's microgames, for ex.  They were a nice alternative to the big multi-hour (or -day) behemoths.

[Gauntlet]

Not sure about the short games for me and my group. Problem is that we spend at least an hour (or three) just Bull S%$#ing before gaming. We normally start the session at 3, but don't start gaming until 5 or 6, and we usually go until 1 AM to 3 AM. But of course we don't have any problems with people who just can't be there for those hours, so if you come in late or leave early, not a problem.

[Cancer]

I recommend Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering for sussing out how better to structure your game to suit your players' often unstated preferences.