*Thanks for watching!* Which campaign style is your favourite? Let us know in the comments down below! Check out World Anvil here: worldanvil.pxf.io/rPqPv Find each chapter of the video easily by clicking on the timestamps in the description.
I like what I call the "Critical Role" model. It's a mix of the Epic Campaign with the Player Campaign. You have the big bad (or maybe multiple BBEGs), but the players' goals are used to help drive the narrative toward the final showdown. A player is looking for their long lost brother? They just happened to have been kidnapped by a minion (or perhaps an adversary NPC) of the BBEG.
I upvoted you, but this is my least favorite campaign, the hybrid between Epic and Player. This is because in all the epic campaigns I have played in, I almost never find the epic plot compelling, or worse yet it feels compelling only in the obligatory sense; and THEN you tie up character goals with the big bad story, or roadblock personal story stuff behind something that I don't like anyway. Maybe that's why I can never stick to Critical Role for long. :) Cheers!
@@unicyclepeon That's why everyone's fun is equally valid! I have 4 campaigns on-going and 3 are open-world for various reasons. The fourth is the hydrid, and so far it's going well after 2.5 years of weekly play. I think a trick is that the players are never quite sure if the current BBEG is the ultimate BBEG. And honestly, the answer will depend on whether they want to continue the campaign or start a new one. Their current BBEG could feasibly be the last, but there is always another layer that they could pursue - there's always a bigger evil pulling the strings. I find though that weaving the PCs backstory into the BBEG's plans helps player investment in the story. The downside I find is that if a player swaps out their character due to boredom or PC death, you have to decide if and how to incorporate the new PC's story into the narrative. And, if a PC bows out early before their piece is resolved, how do you mitigate that? Which style do you prefer, @unicyclepeon?
In my own post on the main thread, I pointed out that I view simulationist not as the mmo theme park approach, but as a process that could apply to any of the other 4 campaign types. I view narratives as the opposite (neither better or worse). With that in mind, I tend to prefer a simulationist "process" in a sandbox game which has an initial small scenario or arc, wherein players know it is open and that they can have player goals but don't have to have them. I then like for there to be a few really important conflicts or problems going on in the world, that they may view as epic, or could be deadly; but the campaign doesn't center around those. Players choose whether to deal with a plague or the nazgul or an invasion, or whether to avoid it. They can affect and be affected by those, but the story doesn't hang on that. Each force or movement or group or individual reacts however makes sense, even if it means the players choose to stay in the Shire and so Nazgul burn the shire. :)
Not bad plan I love the show ATOU World that is designed like that its keeps the tournament interesting for the 4 seasons so far at least haha MHA filler hero tournaments this is not
I have naturally tended toward this as well and now I'm really interested in stretching myself with a sandbox or West Marches style game! As for the potential pitfalls of that style, I've found that as long as you use session 0 and even before then to discuss what style game you all wanna play you can avoid most of the possible problems! My current campaign we even had a player need to drop out last minute due to busy life so another friend hopped in as a guest PC to round out the party for the first adventure but he ended staying on permanently. Even though his character came in randomly and wasn't integrated to the main overarching plot, because he and I had chatted about the overall desired style, we were both on the same page with winging it. There did come a point where he wasn't sure if his PC had a reason to stick around but because none of us were forcing it he had the flex to see what the events happening would do to affect his character arc. It has ended up being a transformative growth for that PC which the player has very much enjoyed and even so the PC has now headed off on her own path and her daughter has joined the party. Which is even more awesome for the player to play multiple generations of the same PC family and now we have the opportunity to do spinoff short games to see what the original character is up to and have that affect the main plot! I love trpgs!! -Dan
I think it's important to remember that Critical Role actually started as an "Accidental Campaign". The entire group first got together for a 1 shot as a birthday present and they had so much fun they wanted to keep going. I myself have a short campaign I'm running that I'm not sure if it's a "simulationist" or "epic" or "player" campaign because they're all stuck in a specific environment with specific problems to solve, but each of these problems are open ended in that they each are deadlocked conflicts that will be swayed by the players and the end outcome isn't per-determined and the players are driving which conflicts they want to influence, and I've absolutely re-written chunks between sessions to better vibe with the game my players are playing. I see myself as someone who builds elaborate playgrounds and I win when a significant amount of fun is had. I really enjoy writing situations and characters and all my players are my friends and I want them to have fun.
I struggle sometimes in games like yours. I'm not big into narrativist gameplay, so if I figure out the GM changed a bunch of stuff on the fly to make the game fit "better", I legit feel robbed. Most players aren't like that, so I'm sure you did the best choice. But I always feel a bit cheated if a hallway went somewhere interesting or an NPC was switched to be an epic villain just because the players assume so, or because the GM liked the idea more. But that's just me, no judgement.
@@unicyclepeon That's a legit feeling. Ironically I came to this strategy because I've been playing in a "wild beyond the witchlight" game and while I enjoy the party and the experience of the module, I feel like I'm on a theme park ride and not REALLY influencing all that much. I was trying to find the balance of "how do I deliver a fleshed out and connected world like a module, but one where the players and their actions are steering the ship?". I think the moral of the story is the same one guy was making, know what kind of game you're running and try to match the right campaign style with player style.
I really like the simulationist approach if its done well because it can offer players a chance to play the game again and try for a specific or better outcome
That's a really good TL;DR for Types of campaigns. I myself Fell into the pitfall of the open campaign with a group of beginners that were way too passive while I didn't want to stifle their exploration.
Personally I hated the pop up banner ads. Much rather just have the content stop for a minute and you run an actual add. Loved the one I saw here recently for the Dragon Shield DM screen. I get the idea of these pop up ads is have them run during content so they don’t interrupt. But I found them way too distracting. That’s just my opinion.
Same for me. I have no idea what Guy talked about during these ads, they were too distracting, too much movement. I get it that the channel needs sponsors to keep going, but I'd rather much prefer a dedicated advertisement slot. Sometimes I watch it, sometimes I skip it, and yes, sometimes i even buy the stuff being recommended here (looking at you, my beloved Rocketbook). This simply works better than this hybrid where I cannot focus on neither the content nor the ad.
I was about to say the same, when I saw your post. I cannot read and listen at the same time. Prefer the old version, also means Guy inject some of his own enthusiasm for the sponsor, rather than just covering the video in banner ads.
I feel like i'm trying to run another type of game nowadays, or maybe a variation on the epic campaign with a sprinkling of player campaign : i'm calling it the seasonal campaign! It's inspired by some of my favourite actual play which are short, narrative and character driven campaign (for example Stitch of Fate, ExU : Calamity...). It can be a longer form one shot or several "seasons" of little campaigns with a defined goal at each season. For it to work, you have to be more fast paced and impactful as a DM. All your scenes must advance the plot OR advance the character goals. You need to make bold "out of the frying pan into the fire" choices with carefully placed breathing moment. I tried it with my current D&D campaign and i couldn't make it work, it evolved into a epic campaign due to my pacing. I'm currently doing it for my VtM campaign and it seems to be working!
I’m running my first campaign, an open campaign, starting next month. Using the Pathfinder 2 system, a system I have played one whole session in, on the premise of the player characters starting an Adventurers’ Guild together. I hope they’ll like it.
I can think of a lot of cases where campaigns can span multiple of these. My personal campaign has an epic scale but multiple faction heads (all over the world that all have their personal goals and strategies) that could serve the role as a potential "big bad" and a largely player driven direction. I feel like it would be simulationist and epic, with arguably enough elements to be considered open
As a new player without an actual table yet, I wanted to be able to relieve some of the pressure on my future DM by learning to at least DM the occasional one-shot. So I started thinking almost without noticing at first about an idea for a one-shot. Now it seems I may already be in the process of making a whole short adventure. With so far: - 7 locations - 4 sub-locations - 6 market stalls (with their respective inventory and for most of them a couple lines between the merchant and a customer the party can hear as they approach) - 12 NPCs (another one to be made soon) - 3 different mystery threads, each with at least 2 rumors about them, that all lead to the same underlying evil plot (so the players can unearth the plot in their own - 5 combat encounters (though not all of them hard) - 3 divinities being worshiped in the area (one officially, one in secret as it's been outlawed and one secret evil cult) - 1 village map where all this is happening (any I will need to make a few more precise battlemaps for specific locations, one for each combat encounter at least) So guess I'm looking at about 3 full sessions at the very least...not counting the weird stuff D&D players are known to do. Might still end up as an accidental campaign
I personally run a sort of simulationist/player campaign hybrid which I personally refer to as an odyssey style campaign. It consists of a string of locations that the players go to, they don't have a choice as to where they go but once they're in a broad location like a city or island there are tonnes of quests that they can partake in. There's generally a central conflict and the players get to act as a sort of wildcard/catalyst to a whole series of events that result directly from their action or inaction. Everything will be 'resolved' regardless of player input in that at the end there will likely be no conflict, but the players are the ones that cause things to swing in a certain direction. The biggest advantage of this style is that I can plan things months in advance without railroading player decisions or having said decisions derail the plans. Every destination has a self contained conflict that leads up to a final conflict and builds up the world around them.
Years ago now I started running an open campaign, basically a loosely connected string of one shots. It was for a huge group of coworkers so keeping them as monthly one shots worked best, but I'd always hoped it would turn into an epic campaign. So I just put a bunch of high powered interesting things in the start of the campaign, combined with something that was easy to build layers of symbolism into (I went with a mystical loom). At the time it was all meaningless, but after playing for so long stuff naturally started to fall into place. The players were hired to bring back a bunch of magical items for a rich wizard. They collected stuff for almost 2 years. When they finally realized they had been supplying weapons to the big bad all along it was so sweet. I've never seen players so frantically search their notes for information.
I'm probably the guy who tries to cram all different approaches into one campaign. I'm generally running adaptations of the Paizo or 5E APs in the Forgotten Realms (pre-Spellplague) which allows me to play epic campaigns in a simulationist setting. It's also relatively open in that I simultaneously have a huge library of other adventures or campaigns, that are attached to different locations of the Realms, so players could stumble over those plot ideas if they stray from the original AP's path. Also, PC backgrounds have a huge influence on the AP plot, so even if we focus on that one AP there will change a lot based on the players goals and actions, making my campaign at least partly into a Player campaign. And this all means that most of the time, the path can change accidentally, so the campaign rarely goes and ends like the AP plot suggests
Yes, please keep the sponsorship thing how it is. MUCH better than stopping for X number of minutes to go on a tangent I've heard in 30 other videos, and if it's something I haven't seen before, it's still nice that it doesn't actually interrupt the video.
Hmm... I start with an Open Campaign and transition to an Epic Campaign. I don't start my game with an Epic scenario in mind. Instead I allow it to grow organically from the player's choices during the Open portion. In the beginning I hand out various adventure hooks for the players to choose from, in an Open fashion. Based on the choices the players make during the Open adventures the Epic portion begins to evolve ~ so, some of the Open adventures might tie together and point the PCs toward a greater Epic event going on.
currently running my first game, turns out its simulationist but purely because i cant improv very well! its an epic campaign on paper, but then that paper also has 5000 or so words per session of pre-planned dialogue and descriptions. Hopefully i get better at improv :)
My favorite kid of campaign to run is a mix between the epic campaign and the player campaign. I love having a beginning, middle, and end of a story/game, but I also like the intimacy of focusing on PC goals throughout the story. I personally despise paying in open campaigns because I'm a very goal oriented person in real life and I don't like aimlessly wandering around in a story that doesn't seem to have an end.
I have an open world/player driven campaign going at the moment. I prep the areas they are going to, for seamless integration of the simulation campaign and if at all meshes together nicely, then we have accidentally created the epic campaign. Be open to input and things you haven't considered, be flexible but prepared. The only rigidity is the rules zero and one. Rule Zero: Dm, Gm, storyteller, keeper whatever is the final arbiter of the rules. Rule One: Don't let the rules get in the way of a good time.
I don't like the popups commercials because it's a distraction. I need to listen closely to your clever words. All though I do understand the need you have for sponsors, and I do like to learn of GM helpful tools. Thanks. You are a great value for me. I am learning a lot.
Looking good, and I like the hair. I was going to say, open campaigns often evolve into epic campaigns, but you covered that under accidental campaign. P.S. I do like the advertisements displayed in the surrounding area. It makes it easier to scan through and pause to look over the details at my leisure.
This has been great series so far. Thank you! You asked about the sponsor thingies, and I absolutely prefer a stop in the video where you tell me/us what the sponsor is offering and what it is you like about their product. That method very often makes me visit their website. The silent non-invasive sponsor ads simply slide by me.
I find it interesting you refer to the simulation campaign as having restriction on agency. I often consider it having the most agency. Simulationist is how I typically GM. In the simulation, every action has a response. The world is set and has inertia, but the players can nudge or change for good or ill. I consider the 'player campaign' to have little agency. As world is static outside of what players choose to do whereas in the simulation one considers all that players do not see.
I think that's his point. In the Simulationist campaign, the players have no real influence on the makings of it. The world is how it is, and the PCs will have to find(which is different than make) a "campaign" to go on one, for lack of a better word. Whereas the player-driven campaign is exactly that. A campaign they are essentially creating through play, and the DM crafting scenes around their goals. Note: Campaign is different than world/setting. I'm only mentioning it because you brought up the agency of the players and compared them. When I don't see, nor think, either campaign type should limit/bolster a PC's agency more than the other. In the "Simulationist campaign" you describe, every action has a response and the world has inertia - it comes off like a Sandbox type setting/world(which is the way I play and DM for), however, a Simulationist campaign is not the same. In the same way, a "player-driven" campaign is much different than a world or setting that is created by the players through play - which also sounds like what you're describing when you say " As (the) world is static outside of what players choose to do whereas in the simulation one considers all that players do not see." - again, I think you are conflating the two: Campaign, World/Setting. Apologies, if I am mistaken and that's not what is happening or if I haven't been clear, I do agree with you overall, however.
Great summary. I agree that text "ads" may be distracting but at least people can't just skip it. Still it's less distracting than my own thoughts... which is basically your fault too - being too much inspirational 🤓
Great topic! This helped me with my campaign plan where I wasn't really sure whether it's open or simulationist. But I'm sorry to say, the animated sponsor banners were very distracting.
As for ads feedback: 1) Banners themselves were ok 2) Change direction (left to right) and its tempo was very hard on the eyes. Please try vertical change direction. I also believe that faster switch would be better As for main vid - great as always ;) Thanks!
I have DMed 4 or 5 Epic campaigns so far, and I am looking to step away from those big epic stories and for something a bit scaled back. I have an idea for a campaign the players being sent by and adventurer's guild to set up a new branch in a small town near their countries boarder for more adventuring opportunities. With some mysteries about a war that ended a couple years ago and how it ended if they want to something a bit grander to dip their toes into.
I prefer open campaign with elements of epic and player campaign. Campaign divided into 4 parts. Every part have his big villain. Parts are: from level 1 to 4, from 5 to 10, from 11 to 16 and from 17 to 20. For every level there is one advanture thet has his mini villain and they are somehow connected to big villain of this part. When I create villain I take in consideration players background and their goals. Also on scale from extreme fantasy to realism I love more realistic approach. Death and TPK is real thing. Combat encounters are scaled up depending on PC level (for example there is no ancient red dragon in world if they are level 3. He will spawn later on). Milestone type. One of qualitys that great GM's haves are improvisation. Unfortunately because of lack of experience I am bad et it so I try to compensate with preparation.
Reagarding Player-based campaigns: one of the most critical things a GM can do to avoid the "listless player" syndrome described is to ensure that the players come up with good character motivations. Unlike an Epic campaign, where motivations are simple and specific - kill the big bad, save the world, etc - a Player Based campaign's motivations need to be vague and very long reaching. "I want to own a starship" is actually pretty crap, as it's too easily obtained. "I want to control the entire Star Empire's fleet" is much better, as in addition to acquiring the ships, you have to gain the industry to maintain them, get commanders to help coordinate, challenge the current authority in charge, etc. Tons of obstacles for the GM to throw, and towns of easy directions for the Player to go in. For a Player Based campaign, the more grandiose and far-reaching the player goals, the better. The trick is to ensure that a Player's motivation is somehow tied to the setting and (very importantly) conjurers up actions to take. "I want to achieve inner peace" is bad, as it's too vague on actions - How are they going to achieve peace? What steps need to be taken? "I want to be rich" is also bad, here - what do you want the wealth for? If they just want to Dragon Horde it, describe what that would look like AS the motivation (e.g. "I want a Scrooge McDuck money bin where I'll store the entire world's platinum supply for my own amusement", "I want to own - free and clear - an entire planet suitable for colonization", "I want to own a diamond-crusted Ship of the Line, fully armed with magical canons, that can turn into a submarine at will").
I like the add system of having the visual. I often just skip the adds and go to the content. So this is actually more likely to get my attention and less invasive to the experience.
I try to set up all of those as possible but fully player driven in which one and if they want to shift they can, so player campaign with the "feel" of the others based on player wants .. I make sure I can serious, parody or any other feel in almost* any situation ... Improve is my strongest skill in life, I improve act just sitting alone watching anima as if I could brake the fourth wall
Accidental tends to transition to Open. But I've been thinking it would be cool to make a transition to a Player campaign the "price" for continuing to play those PCs. "Sure, you can play them again... if you give me something they want to do." 😉
I love Epic campaigns! And I prefer to have the sponsor actually talked about, not try to read sidebar/header/footer information while also trying not to miss anything you are saying. As an aside, did you dye your hair purple, or was it just the lighting?
The ads were a bit distracting too. Somthing about the change in movement while watching made it a little difficult to concentrate on what was being said in the video. Overstimulation maybe? That's just me though. I know I could just listen and not watch but I like watching the videos =)
I have never viewed simulationist as a campaign type; maybe I have used the term wrong. To me, a simulationist label indicates an approach to the process, not to the campaign type. An epic campaign or a player campaign or an accidental campaign or a sandbox ... these could all be simulationist. Or they could be narrativist. So your description of simulations as being like an MMO surprised me, because I love simulationist style campaigns, but hate static campaigns that are like a theme park. For me, a simulationist process game is one where, given you know about some or all of your world in advance, and there are forces or individuals with goals, those processes are known at time X and will play out as makes sense. So you understand what all is going on, and then player actions could completely change all that, but not in a narrativist way. If the players decide to stake out an enemy base on the day after that enemy had left to sack a town then that is just too bad; or if they spend a whole play session convinced a woman is a witch when she is an old lady, then they bark up the wrong tree. Then the role playing and fun comes in dealing with how well or poorly their actions affect things. If the Hobbits were stupid enough to not leave the shire and escape to bree, the next game is "what happens when three nazgul ravage a hobbit village" and that's the game. But IF the players leave, then the Nazgul do what makes sense, and pursue. Anyway, just thinking out loud. Love your stuff! Cheers!
I'm not aware of you doing a video on this yet; please correct me if I'm wrong, Asking yourself some crucial questions to see if you are genuinely ready to be a GM/DM, and what those questions are. I think it's important to ask yourself a series of questions to help you figure out how ready you are for the big chair, from a psychological level. This is something that is more important that it seems at first glance. To me, if you answer all or most of those questions in the mindset that has you being intentionally hostile and/or wanting to cause some sort of harm or pain to the other players, then you aren't ready, from a mental stance, yet. Will you come in wanting to hurt something? Sometimes, yes, but you shouldn't be forcing your pain and trauma on the other people at the table, that's a quick way to a very unfun table with most of the players either rage quitting or feeling uneasy the entire game, but you should leave things open so the other players have a choice in deciding to make themselves part of that situation to see if they can do something to help you out. The point is that it should be a choice the players make of their own voltion, not something they are forced into because the one running the game needs some sort of catharsis at the expense of the Players. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this channel on RUclips, Play Your Role, he does a whole bunch of videos on character archetypes and what makes them work and what doesn't, he even livestreams some character building videos every now and then and involves the community deciding the finer details of the character, like Feats they take, Spells they know, the Skills they know, the languages they know, and so on. It think his videos are good compliment to yours, you do things more on the DM/GM side of things and he does things more on the Player with a PC side of things. That all said, you both have few videos that dip into the other side of things every now and then.
Love this video! Thank you for breaking it down. How did you derive to these 5 if I may ask! Other than your experience of course. Have you learned these playstyles from other dms? just curious my friend!
I don't think you know what simulationist is. Ideally, you will have a detailed world, with stories that will play out and then you introduce the players and EVERYTHING changes. Did they take the job? Did they succeed? What changed? I doubt many will consider all the ripple effects, but that is the ideal. It gives players total agency. Yes, they have to create characters consistent with the setting, but that's just not being a crap world builder. Simulationist campaigns could be Open or Player led or Epic. It's up to the players. I will put in threads for all of these and they will run until someone pulls on them. The god of Death will descend whether the PCs are actively trying to stop Her or not. The idea is to be like reality only more fun and easier.
I have an off topic question I really hope someone will be able to help me answer. I am DMing a table of all new players. They aren't too keen on investigating or exploring the space and I want to encourage that. The next chapter I am running requires it and im not sure how to get them to really open up the space. (Specifically, Waterdeep Dragon Heist Chapter 3: Fireball). They are just starting to put some clues together and are getting that gleam in their eye, but I think they need just a little more help and Im not sure how to get us there. I appreciate any and all feedback :)
I tend to run Merciless Kick-in-Door Kill the Monsters and Kill the PC's style of game. No moral conundrums, I want to relax and stomp some goblins, none of this "but monsters are people to" nonsense.
Possibly unpopular opinion: Guy has a lot of experience as a dm. A ****-ton more than i will probably ever have - even though i am mostly dm-only in all of my sessions nowadays. BUT, i have been following this channel for a couple of years, and i always found it helpful in some scenarios. This said, i think you recycle a lot of content in the recent time. This is inevitable for any content creator, unless the content they are talking about is updated frequently - which role-playing content rarely is. Don't get me wrong, i still enjoyed the content of the video - just not as much, as when i was starting out as a gm.
Oh and btw - no relation to the last comment - I really enjoyed your natural hair color. Objectively speaking, i think your natural hair color with a bit of "salt and pepper" would work way better than the slight blue - from a distance possibly gray - it is now. But that is subjective opinion. If you feel more confident with that, go with it! Your content is great, no matter my opinion of your looks ;)
not a huge fan of the side bar sponsor things. i can't listen to you and read them at the same time. it's distracting. good video tho. ive been trying to start a campaign but i don't know what kind of game i want to play. this helped highlight my options
*Thanks for watching!* Which campaign style is your favourite? Let us know in the comments down below!
Check out World Anvil here: worldanvil.pxf.io/rPqPv
Find each chapter of the video easily by clicking on the timestamps in the description.
I like what I call the "Critical Role" model. It's a mix of the Epic Campaign with the Player Campaign. You have the big bad (or maybe multiple BBEGs), but the players' goals are used to help drive the narrative toward the final showdown. A player is looking for their long lost brother? They just happened to have been kidnapped by a minion (or perhaps an adversary NPC) of the BBEG.
I upvoted you, but this is my least favorite campaign, the hybrid between Epic and Player. This is because in all the epic campaigns I have played in, I almost never find the epic plot compelling, or worse yet it feels compelling only in the obligatory sense; and THEN you tie up character goals with the big bad story, or roadblock personal story stuff behind something that I don't like anyway. Maybe that's why I can never stick to Critical Role for long. :)
Cheers!
@@unicyclepeon That's why everyone's fun is equally valid! I have 4 campaigns on-going and 3 are open-world for various reasons. The fourth is the hydrid, and so far it's going well after 2.5 years of weekly play. I think a trick is that the players are never quite sure if the current BBEG is the ultimate BBEG. And honestly, the answer will depend on whether they want to continue the campaign or start a new one. Their current BBEG could feasibly be the last, but there is always another layer that they could pursue - there's always a bigger evil pulling the strings. I find though that weaving the PCs backstory into the BBEG's plans helps player investment in the story. The downside I find is that if a player swaps out their character due to boredom or PC death, you have to decide if and how to incorporate the new PC's story into the narrative. And, if a PC bows out early before their piece is resolved, how do you mitigate that?
Which style do you prefer, @unicyclepeon?
In my own post on the main thread, I pointed out that I view simulationist not as the mmo theme park approach, but as a process that could apply to any of the other 4 campaign types. I view narratives as the opposite (neither better or worse).
With that in mind, I tend to prefer a simulationist "process" in a sandbox game which has an initial small scenario or arc, wherein players know it is open and that they can have player goals but don't have to have them. I then like for there to be a few really important conflicts or problems going on in the world, that they may view as epic, or could be deadly; but the campaign doesn't center around those. Players choose whether to deal with a plague or the nazgul or an invasion, or whether to avoid it. They can affect and be affected by those, but the story doesn't hang on that. Each force or movement or group or individual reacts however makes sense, even if it means the players choose to stay in the Shire and so Nazgul burn the shire. :)
Not bad plan
I love the show ATOU World that is designed like that its keeps the tournament interesting for the 4 seasons so far at least haha MHA filler hero tournaments this is not
I have naturally tended toward this as well and now I'm really interested in stretching myself with a sandbox or West Marches style game! As for the potential pitfalls of that style, I've found that as long as you use session 0 and even before then to discuss what style game you all wanna play you can avoid most of the possible problems! My current campaign we even had a player need to drop out last minute due to busy life so another friend hopped in as a guest PC to round out the party for the first adventure but he ended staying on permanently. Even though his character came in randomly and wasn't integrated to the main overarching plot, because he and I had chatted about the overall desired style, we were both on the same page with winging it. There did come a point where he wasn't sure if his PC had a reason to stick around but because none of us were forcing it he had the flex to see what the events happening would do to affect his character arc. It has ended up being a transformative growth for that PC which the player has very much enjoyed and even so the PC has now headed off on her own path and her daughter has joined the party. Which is even more awesome for the player to play multiple generations of the same PC family and now we have the opportunity to do spinoff short games to see what the original character is up to and have that affect the main plot! I love trpgs!!
-Dan
I think it's important to remember that Critical Role actually started as an "Accidental Campaign". The entire group first got together for a 1 shot as a birthday present and they had so much fun they wanted to keep going.
I myself have a short campaign I'm running that I'm not sure if it's a "simulationist" or "epic" or "player" campaign because they're all stuck in a specific environment with specific problems to solve, but each of these problems are open ended in that they each are deadlocked conflicts that will be swayed by the players and the end outcome isn't per-determined and the players are driving which conflicts they want to influence, and I've absolutely re-written chunks between sessions to better vibe with the game my players are playing.
I see myself as someone who builds elaborate playgrounds and I win when a significant amount of fun is had. I really enjoy writing situations and characters and all my players are my friends and I want them to have fun.
I struggle sometimes in games like yours. I'm not big into narrativist gameplay, so if I figure out the GM changed a bunch of stuff on the fly to make the game fit "better", I legit feel robbed. Most players aren't like that, so I'm sure you did the best choice. But I always feel a bit cheated if a hallway went somewhere interesting or an NPC was switched to be an epic villain just because the players assume so, or because the GM liked the idea more.
But that's just me, no judgement.
@@unicyclepeon That's a legit feeling. Ironically I came to this strategy because I've been playing in a "wild beyond the witchlight" game and while I enjoy the party and the experience of the module, I feel like I'm on a theme park ride and not REALLY influencing all that much. I was trying to find the balance of "how do I deliver a fleshed out and connected world like a module, but one where the players and their actions are steering the ship?".
I think the moral of the story is the same one guy was making, know what kind of game you're running and try to match the right campaign style with player style.
I really like the simulationist approach if its done well because it can offer players a chance to play the game again and try for a specific or better outcome
That's a really good TL;DR for Types of campaigns. I myself Fell into the pitfall of the open campaign with a group of beginners that were way too passive while I didn't want to stifle their exploration.
Personally I hated the pop up banner ads. Much rather just have the content stop for a minute and you run an actual add. Loved the one I saw here recently for the Dragon Shield DM screen.
I get the idea of these pop up ads is have them run during content so they don’t interrupt. But I found them way too distracting. That’s just my opinion.
Same for me. I have no idea what Guy talked about during these ads, they were too distracting, too much movement. I get it that the channel needs sponsors to keep going, but I'd rather much prefer a dedicated advertisement slot. Sometimes I watch it, sometimes I skip it, and yes, sometimes i even buy the stuff being recommended here (looking at you, my beloved Rocketbook). This simply works better than this hybrid where I cannot focus on neither the content nor the ad.
I was about to say the same, when I saw your post. I cannot read and listen at the same time. Prefer the old version, also means Guy inject some of his own enthusiasm for the sponsor, rather than just covering the video in banner ads.
I feel like i'm trying to run another type of game nowadays, or maybe a variation on the epic campaign with a sprinkling of player campaign : i'm calling it the seasonal campaign!
It's inspired by some of my favourite actual play which are short, narrative and character driven campaign (for example Stitch of Fate, ExU : Calamity...). It can be a longer form one shot or several "seasons" of little campaigns with a defined goal at each season. For it to work, you have to be more fast paced and impactful as a DM. All your scenes must advance the plot OR advance the character goals. You need to make bold "out of the frying pan into the fire" choices with carefully placed breathing moment.
I tried it with my current D&D campaign and i couldn't make it work, it evolved into a epic campaign due to my pacing. I'm currently doing it for my VtM campaign and it seems to be working!
I liked the ad format, very nice
I’m running my first campaign, an open campaign, starting next month. Using the Pathfinder 2 system, a system I have played one whole session in, on the premise of the player characters starting an Adventurers’ Guild together. I hope they’ll like it.
I can think of a lot of cases where campaigns can span multiple of these. My personal campaign has an epic scale but multiple faction heads (all over the world that all have their personal goals and strategies) that could serve the role as a potential "big bad" and a largely player driven direction. I feel like it would be simulationist and epic, with arguably enough elements to be considered open
As a new player without an actual table yet, I wanted to be able to relieve some of the pressure on my future DM by learning to at least DM the occasional one-shot.
So I started thinking almost without noticing at first about an idea for a one-shot.
Now it seems I may already be in the process of making a whole short adventure. With so far:
- 7 locations
- 4 sub-locations
- 6 market stalls (with their respective inventory and for most of them a couple lines between the merchant and a customer the party can hear as they approach)
- 12 NPCs (another one to be made soon)
- 3 different mystery threads, each with at least 2 rumors about them, that all lead to the same underlying evil plot (so the players can unearth the plot in their own
- 5 combat encounters (though not all of them hard)
- 3 divinities being worshiped in the area (one officially, one in secret as it's been outlawed and one secret evil cult)
- 1 village map where all this is happening (any I will need to make a few more precise battlemaps for specific locations, one for each combat encounter at least)
So guess I'm looking at about 3 full sessions at the very least...not counting the weird stuff D&D players are known to do. Might still end up as an accidental campaign
I run Epic Campaigns the campaign start back in Jan 7, 2018. Its still going to this day. If everything goes right we will fines it in 3 more years.
I personally run a sort of simulationist/player campaign hybrid which I personally refer to as an odyssey style campaign. It consists of a string of locations that the players go to, they don't have a choice as to where they go but once they're in a broad location like a city or island there are tonnes of quests that they can partake in. There's generally a central conflict and the players get to act as a sort of wildcard/catalyst to a whole series of events that result directly from their action or inaction. Everything will be 'resolved' regardless of player input in that at the end there will likely be no conflict, but the players are the ones that cause things to swing in a certain direction.
The biggest advantage of this style is that I can plan things months in advance without railroading player decisions or having said decisions derail the plans. Every destination has a self contained conflict that leads up to a final conflict and builds up the world around them.
Years ago now I started running an open campaign, basically a loosely connected string of one shots. It was for a huge group of coworkers so keeping them as monthly one shots worked best, but I'd always hoped it would turn into an epic campaign.
So I just put a bunch of high powered interesting things in the start of the campaign, combined with something that was easy to build layers of symbolism into (I went with a mystical loom). At the time it was all meaningless, but after playing for so long stuff naturally started to fall into place.
The players were hired to bring back a bunch of magical items for a rich wizard. They collected stuff for almost 2 years. When they finally realized they had been supplying weapons to the big bad all along it was so sweet. I've never seen players so frantically search their notes for information.
I'm probably the guy who tries to cram all different approaches into one campaign. I'm generally running adaptations of the Paizo or 5E APs in the Forgotten Realms (pre-Spellplague) which allows me to play epic campaigns in a simulationist setting. It's also relatively open in that I simultaneously have a huge library of other adventures or campaigns, that are attached to different locations of the Realms, so players could stumble over those plot ideas if they stray from the original AP's path. Also, PC backgrounds have a huge influence on the AP plot, so even if we focus on that one AP there will change a lot based on the players goals and actions, making my campaign at least partly into a Player campaign. And this all means that most of the time, the path can change accidentally, so the campaign rarely goes and ends like the AP plot suggests
Yes, please keep the sponsorship thing how it is. MUCH better than stopping for X number of minutes to go on a tangent I've heard in 30 other videos, and if it's something I haven't seen before, it's still nice that it doesn't actually interrupt the video.
I didnt even realize it was a sponsorship until it was over, lol.
I remeber the original video on this. It's always good to recap on old knowladge, especially if its relevant to the current topic
Hmm... I start with an Open Campaign and transition to an Epic Campaign. I don't start my game with an Epic scenario in mind. Instead I allow it to grow organically from the player's choices during the Open portion. In the beginning I hand out various adventure hooks for the players to choose from, in an Open fashion. Based on the choices the players make during the Open adventures the Epic portion begins to evolve ~ so, some of the Open adventures might tie together and point the PCs toward a greater Epic event going on.
currently running my first game, turns out its simulationist but purely because i cant improv very well! its an epic campaign on paper, but then that paper also has 5000 or so words per session of pre-planned dialogue and descriptions. Hopefully i get better at improv :)
My favorite kid of campaign to run is a mix between the epic campaign and the player campaign. I love having a beginning, middle, and end of a story/game, but I also like the intimacy of focusing on PC goals throughout the story.
I personally despise paying in open campaigns because I'm a very goal oriented person in real life and I don't like aimlessly wandering around in a story that doesn't seem to have an end.
I have an open world/player driven campaign going at the moment. I prep the areas they are going to, for seamless integration of the simulation campaign and if at all meshes together nicely, then we have accidentally created the epic campaign. Be open to input and things you haven't considered, be flexible but prepared. The only rigidity is the rules zero and one. Rule Zero: Dm, Gm, storyteller, keeper whatever is the final arbiter of the rules. Rule One: Don't let the rules get in the way of a good time.
I don't like the popups commercials because it's a distraction. I need to listen closely to your clever words.
All though I do understand the need you have for sponsors, and I do like to learn of GM helpful tools.
Thanks. You are a great value for me. I am learning a lot.
Looking good, and I like the hair.
I was going to say, open campaigns often evolve into epic campaigns, but you covered that under accidental campaign.
P.S. I do like the advertisements displayed in the surrounding area. It makes it easier to scan through and pause to look over the details at my leisure.
This has been great series so far. Thank you! You asked about the sponsor thingies, and I absolutely prefer a stop in the video where you tell me/us what the sponsor is offering and what it is you like about their product. That method very often makes me visit their website. The silent non-invasive sponsor ads simply slide by me.
I find it interesting you refer to the simulation campaign as having restriction on agency. I often consider it having the most agency. Simulationist is how I typically GM.
In the simulation, every action has a response. The world is set and has inertia, but the players can nudge or change for good or ill. I consider the 'player campaign' to have little agency. As world is static outside of what players choose to do whereas in the simulation one considers all that players do not see.
I think that's his point. In the Simulationist campaign, the players have no real influence on the makings of it. The world is how it is, and the PCs will have to find(which is different than make) a "campaign" to go on one, for lack of a better word. Whereas the player-driven campaign is exactly that. A campaign they are essentially creating through play, and the DM crafting scenes around their goals.
Note: Campaign is different than world/setting. I'm only mentioning it because you brought up the agency of the players and compared them. When I don't see, nor think, either campaign type should limit/bolster a PC's agency more than the other. In the "Simulationist campaign" you describe, every action has a response and the world has inertia - it comes off like a Sandbox type setting/world(which is the way I play and DM for), however, a Simulationist campaign is not the same.
In the same way, a "player-driven" campaign is much different than a world or setting that is created by the players through play - which also sounds like what you're describing when you say " As (the) world is static outside of what players choose to do whereas in the simulation one considers all that players do not see." - again, I think you are conflating the two: Campaign, World/Setting.
Apologies, if I am mistaken and that's not what is happening or if I haven't been clear, I do agree with you overall, however.
Great summary. I agree that text "ads" may be distracting but at least people can't just skip it. Still it's less distracting than my own thoughts... which is basically your fault too - being too much inspirational 🤓
Great topic! This helped me with my campaign plan where I wasn't really sure whether it's open or simulationist.
But I'm sorry to say, the animated sponsor banners were very distracting.
I liked the way you did the ads in this video.
As for ads feedback:
1) Banners themselves were ok
2) Change direction (left to right) and its tempo was very hard on the eyes. Please try vertical change direction. I also believe that faster switch would be better
As for main vid - great as always ;) Thanks!
I have DMed 4 or 5 Epic campaigns so far, and I am looking to step away from those big epic stories and for something a bit scaled back. I have an idea for a campaign the players being sent by and adventurer's guild to set up a new branch in a small town near their countries boarder for more adventuring opportunities.
With some mysteries about a war that ended a couple years ago and how it ended if they want to something a bit grander to dip their toes into.
I prefer open campaign with elements of epic and player campaign. Campaign divided into 4 parts. Every part have his big villain. Parts are: from level 1 to 4, from 5 to 10, from 11 to 16 and from 17 to 20. For every level there is one advanture thet has his mini villain and they are somehow connected to big villain of this part. When I create villain I take in consideration players background and their goals. Also on scale from extreme fantasy to realism I love more realistic approach. Death and TPK is real thing. Combat encounters are scaled up depending on PC level (for example there is no ancient red dragon in world if they are level 3. He will spawn later on). Milestone type.
One of qualitys that great GM's haves are improvisation. Unfortunately because of lack of experience I am bad et it so I try to compensate with preparation.
Reagarding Player-based campaigns: one of the most critical things a GM can do to avoid the "listless player" syndrome described is to ensure that the players come up with good character motivations.
Unlike an Epic campaign, where motivations are simple and specific - kill the big bad, save the world, etc - a Player Based campaign's motivations need to be vague and very long reaching. "I want to own a starship" is actually pretty crap, as it's too easily obtained. "I want to control the entire Star Empire's fleet" is much better, as in addition to acquiring the ships, you have to gain the industry to maintain them, get commanders to help coordinate, challenge the current authority in charge, etc. Tons of obstacles for the GM to throw, and towns of easy directions for the Player to go in. For a Player Based campaign, the more grandiose and far-reaching the player goals, the better.
The trick is to ensure that a Player's motivation is somehow tied to the setting and (very importantly) conjurers up actions to take. "I want to achieve inner peace" is bad, as it's too vague on actions - How are they going to achieve peace? What steps need to be taken? "I want to be rich" is also bad, here - what do you want the wealth for? If they just want to Dragon Horde it, describe what that would look like AS the motivation (e.g. "I want a Scrooge McDuck money bin where I'll store the entire world's platinum supply for my own amusement", "I want to own - free and clear - an entire planet suitable for colonization", "I want to own a diamond-crusted Ship of the Line, fully armed with magical canons, that can turn into a submarine at will").
I like the add system of having the visual. I often just skip the adds and go to the content. So this is actually more likely to get my attention and less invasive to the experience.
I try to set up all of those as possible but fully player driven in which one and if they want to shift they can, so player campaign with the "feel" of the others based on player wants .. I make sure I can serious, parody or any other feel in almost* any situation ... Improve is my strongest skill in life, I improve act just sitting alone watching anima as if I could brake the fourth wall
Accidental tends to transition to Open. But I've been thinking it would be cool to make a transition to a Player campaign the "price" for continuing to play those PCs. "Sure, you can play them again... if you give me something they want to do." 😉
I love Epic campaigns! And I prefer to have the sponsor actually talked about, not try to read sidebar/header/footer information while also trying not to miss anything you are saying. As an aside, did you dye your hair purple, or was it just the lighting?
The ads were a bit distracting too. Somthing about the change in movement while watching made it a little difficult to concentrate on what was being said in the video. Overstimulation maybe? That's just me though. I know I could just listen and not watch but I like watching the videos =)
Currently running an accidental campaign that has evolved into a mix of epic and player campaign.
Just found you via random video. You have some good advise. You have my sub.
I might be getting old, but I can't seem to focus on both the spoken AND the written words (sponsor ads) :-)
Thanks.
I have never viewed simulationist as a campaign type; maybe I have used the term wrong. To me, a simulationist label indicates an approach to the process, not to the campaign type.
An epic campaign or a player campaign or an accidental campaign or a sandbox ... these could all be simulationist. Or they could be narrativist. So your description of simulations as being like an MMO surprised me, because I love simulationist style campaigns, but hate static campaigns that are like a theme park.
For me, a simulationist process game is one where, given you know about some or all of your world in advance, and there are forces or individuals with goals, those processes are known at time X and will play out as makes sense. So you understand what all is going on, and then player actions could completely change all that, but not in a narrativist way. If the players decide to stake out an enemy base on the day after that enemy had left to sack a town then that is just too bad; or if they spend a whole play session convinced a woman is a witch when she is an old lady, then they bark up the wrong tree. Then the role playing and fun comes in dealing with how well or poorly their actions affect things. If the Hobbits were stupid enough to not leave the shire and escape to bree, the next game is "what happens when three nazgul ravage a hobbit village" and that's the game. But IF the players leave, then the Nazgul do what makes sense, and pursue.
Anyway, just thinking out loud. Love your stuff! Cheers!
Love your videos helpful and inspiring keep up the awesome work
I'm not aware of you doing a video on this yet; please correct me if I'm wrong, Asking yourself some crucial questions to see if you are genuinely ready to be a GM/DM, and what those questions are. I think it's important to ask yourself a series of questions to help you figure out how ready you are for the big chair, from a psychological level. This is something that is more important that it seems at first glance. To me, if you answer all or most of those questions in the mindset that has you being intentionally hostile and/or wanting to cause some sort of harm or pain to the other players, then you aren't ready, from a mental stance, yet.
Will you come in wanting to hurt something? Sometimes, yes, but you shouldn't be forcing your pain and trauma on the other people at the table, that's a quick way to a very unfun table with most of the players either rage quitting or feeling uneasy the entire game, but you should leave things open so the other players have a choice in deciding to make themselves part of that situation to see if they can do something to help you out. The point is that it should be a choice the players make of their own voltion, not something they are forced into because the one running the game needs some sort of catharsis at the expense of the Players.
Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this channel on RUclips, Play Your Role, he does a whole bunch of videos on character archetypes and what makes them work and what doesn't, he even livestreams some character building videos every now and then and involves the community deciding the finer details of the character, like Feats they take, Spells they know, the Skills they know, the languages they know, and so on. It think his videos are good compliment to yours, you do things more on the DM/GM side of things and he does things more on the Player with a PC side of things. That all said, you both have few videos that dip into the other side of things every now and then.
Interesting... My first major campaign and I'm doing a mix of epic open world and player driven 😂
damn, now I realized I am doing 3 types same time :)
I tried to run a simulation campaign. I thought I had coverd all possibilities. Of course I didn't and my players did something completely different
Love this video! Thank you for breaking it down. How did you derive to these 5 if I may ask! Other than your experience of course. Have you learned these playstyles from other dms? just curious my friend!
From experience, from talking with other GMs and from exploring options presented to us by consumer products (which are 90% simulationist).
Absolutely LOVE the way you're doing sponsorship. I happen to use World Anvil anyway, but I certainly hope they are pleased with this.
I think a spoken sponsor spot is still probably best. I listen more than watch, so it completely misses with that.
What one shot do you recommend for a 1st time gm and players? We had session 0 but havent gotten started on essentials kit adventure
I don't think you know what simulationist is. Ideally, you will have a detailed world, with stories that will play out and then you introduce the players and EVERYTHING changes. Did they take the job? Did they succeed? What changed?
I doubt many will consider all the ripple effects, but that is the ideal. It gives players total agency. Yes, they have to create characters consistent with the setting, but that's just not being a crap world builder.
Simulationist campaigns could be Open or Player led or Epic. It's up to the players. I will put in threads for all of these and they will run until someone pulls on them. The god of Death will descend whether the PCs are actively trying to stop Her or not. The idea is to be like reality only more fun and easier.
Love the purple hair on you!
NO!!! just NO!!?
👍
I have an off topic question I really hope someone will be able to help me answer. I am DMing a table of all new players. They aren't too keen on investigating or exploring the space and I want to encourage that. The next chapter I am running requires it and im not sure how to get them to really open up the space. (Specifically, Waterdeep Dragon Heist Chapter 3: Fireball). They are just starting to put some clues together and are getting that gleam in their eye, but I think they need just a little more help and Im not sure how to get us there.
I appreciate any and all feedback :)
I tend to run Merciless Kick-in-Door Kill the Monsters and Kill the PC's style of game. No moral conundrums, I want to relax and stomp some goblins, none of this "but monsters are people to" nonsense.
Can't ind simulationist campaings now a days =/
Possibly unpopular opinion:
Guy has a lot of experience as a dm. A ****-ton more than i will probably ever have - even though i am mostly dm-only in all of my sessions nowadays. BUT, i have been following this channel for a couple of years, and i always found it helpful in some scenarios. This said, i think you recycle a lot of content in the recent time. This is inevitable for any content creator, unless the content they are talking about is updated frequently - which role-playing content rarely is.
Don't get me wrong, i still enjoyed the content of the video - just not as much, as when i was starting out as a gm.
Oh and btw - no relation to the last comment - I really enjoyed your natural hair color. Objectively speaking, i think your natural hair color with a bit of "salt and pepper" would work way better than the slight blue - from a distance possibly gray - it is now. But that is subjective opinion. If you feel more confident with that, go with it! Your content is great, no matter my opinion of your looks ;)
Funny i just started to watch "stranger things" series.
i definitely prefer having the sponsor being a silent part of the video. if the sponsor is taking up time in the video, i just skip over that part.
First.
please just have a section where you mention the sponsor, the visual add is honestly more distracting than the minute or so of advertisements
not a huge fan of the side bar sponsor things. i can't listen to you and read them at the same time. it's distracting. good video tho. ive been trying to start a campaign but i don't know what kind of game i want to play. this helped highlight my options
Those ads were horrible. Please make it not take up so much space in the video. It actually made me not want to use the product.
why are your hair and beard of different color