This isn't by any means my first campaign, but it is something I'm trying to put a lot of effort and work into, and I'm also trying to change up some of my DM-ing style for this.
The plot goes somewhat like this;
After 20 years, the Church has all but fallen in their crusade against the blight of the Undead. Now, they scramble to assemble even a small battalion. With no other choice, they hire any adventurer, mercenary, or warrior they can.
Now tasked with assisting in the war efforts on their campaign of genocide, you, and your fellow party-members, must face the unrelenting armies of those who yet live, even as far deep as their Felled Lord, sitting on his throne of decay and ruination.
Fear. Hunt. Eradicate.
For all that shimmers and scorns shall one day fall.
Out of Narration-mode now, the campaign is pretty straightforward;
Assist the Church in their war on the Undead, extra side-quests between lore-heavy main-quests, and uncover the secrets of the Undead's origins. The campaign will go all the way to level 20 (haven't decided on the starting level), and will end with the BBEG, the Lord of the Undead. And, just to clear anything up, this is a fully homebrewed campaign, although I pulled heavy inspiration from a lot of different DnD sourcebooks covering the lower planes, especially Acheron Book's Inferno (definitely recommend checking it out, it's great).
My hope for this campaign is a lore-filled, high-difficulty campaign for 4-6 people, and is highly interactive with both he player's back stories and something more free-form, and less railroad-ed(a big problem I come across in a lot of my campaigns).
I've already gotten so many ideas swirling in my head, but I've never made such an extensive or homebrewed world, so I'm finding it a bit difficult to sort everything out.
And, if anyone finds the campaign interesting, you're more than welcome to take any and/or all the ideas.
This is my first post, and I've really only made this account for feedback/advice on this campaign.
The big thing that jumps out at me is, don’t assume you’ll hit level 20, unless you’re starting at 19 or something. Usually if you decide it’s going to go to a specific level, it ends up with either a bunch of filler, or otherwise forces things either too long or too short. By all means keep it open as an option, but try to just let the story unfold and end whenever it naturally wants to end. More often, the story will want to wrap up sooner — particularly when the concept is as straightforward as this one. Also, from a metagame perspective, it takes a long time, irl, to get to 20. Players get itchy to try a new character, or otherwise change the tone of the campaign.
I suppose you are right about that. I mostly have that "goal" in the sense that I intend this campaign to go up to high-level play. So, it's more accurate to say the campaign would hopefully end at the later levels of the game.
Admittedly, when it comes to leveling up in the group I usually run with(regardless of who's the DM at the time), we usually end up leveling up quite quickly, around a level every 2-3 sessions, so something like getting to level 20 doesn't usually take as long as it does in some other groups. I'll likely do more around 4-5, if not more, but it's a helpful reminder that I need to keep things fresh without relying on just level ups, thanks.
On that topic of keeping things fresh(relatively) between level ups, and in general through the entire campaign, there is one glaring issue I need to address, mostly just for my own growth as a DM; railroading, or rather, not railroading. Especially when it comes to one of my more engaged players(not to call them out for anything bad, they're great), something like a preset, forced path isn't the kind of game many of my players enjoy. And, with the entire game structured on fighting specifically undead enemies(and a lot of fiends, but still, not a diverse range), it can get monotonous. That's partly why the idea of side quests of sorts came to mind. Not only would it break up all the constant undead enemies with more interesting encounters, but it would also make the party's experience less forced, since they could pick and choose additional content. And, it gives me the opportunity to try new ideas and use some of the more obscure lore of the setting. So, all around a good move, though I'd still like to come up with some other ways to make the campaign less forced.
The problem with a long-running campaign with a single main plot arc is that you want the PCs to be able to do something towards their main quest even at the start of the game, and it's hard to give a real sense of progress while still dragging the game out to a 1-20 arc. You may wish to introduce multiple adversary groups (who might also be adversaries to one another; this is useful early game to explain how the PCs are able to be relevant) so they can work for a while against one adversary group, maybe defeat them or maybe get distracted, and then switch to a new adversary group.
Within the context of your idea, some thoughts:
I would present things as an unfolding disaster, rather than "everything is already fallen", as this lets you naturally scale the threats as the PCs become more powerful.
Give the boss a number of lieutenants who can be defeated, each with their own theme. Again, it's helpful if you have a way to represent them becoming more powerful with time, because otherwise if your first boss is someone they can beat at level 5 or something, the other bosses will be rather disappointing.
Don't require the PCs to focus on one faction at a time -- they can either focus on and defeat one boss (while ignoring the other bosses, who are getting deadlier), or try to limit all of them.
So, to avoid railroading in the campaign you described. The biggest thing is to give the players chances to opt out. You have this overarching plot of church v. Undead. Let the PCs ignore it. There should be consequences, but it should be an option. Like they just decide they don’t care about saving that one town from the zombies, they have other priorities. Allow them to go deal with those priorities. The town will, of course, fall to the zombies, which will be bad. But the choice they made will allow for something good to happen somewhere else.
Also, I’d suggest a third faction. Right now it’s very white hats and black hats. Throw in a third power center to allow for the formation of alliances and for double crossing. Maybe 2 more, but most players can’t keep straight more than 3-4 groups. That also helps relieve railroad stress, as it gives different groups who might have missions for them. And they can then choose which ones to engage with. And that third could always be a splinter group. Some of the church folks are really taking a hard line, like a “burn down the village to save it.” Give the players a choice about who they might align themselves with.
I would present things as an unfolding disaster, rather than "everything is already fallen", as this lets you naturally scale the threats as the PCs become more powerful.
Give the boss a number of lieutenants who can be defeated, each with their own theme. Again, it's helpful if you have a way to represent them becoming more powerful with time, because otherwise if your first boss is someone they can beat at level 5 or something, the other bosses will be rather disappointing.
Don't require the PCs to focus on one faction at a time -- they can either focus on and defeat one boss (while ignoring the other bosses, who are getting deadlier), or try to limit all of them.
Makes sense, yeah. And, specifically about the idea of "lieutenants," I'd mostly already thought of something similar. Mostly along the lines of different Undead's representing aspects of life, and how different attachments to life drive people to be more wary of the time they have.
For instance, the most fleshed-out of these lieutenants so far is an elder vampire, who now leads a "family" of other vampires, each stolen from their old families and then forcibly turned. I even have the idea for one of these vampiric "children" who deserted, even going as far as to assist in the war on the other side, all for the sake that more loved ones aren't taken away.
The others are less designed, more concept, but I'm trying to think up 4-ish, with a full "council" of the BBEG's lieutenants being 8, though also includes fiends as well as undead.
Also, I’d suggest a third faction. Right now it’s very white hats and black hats. Throw in a third power center to allow for the formation of alliances and for double crossing. Maybe 2 more, but most players can’t keep straight more than 3-4 groups. That also helps relieve railroad stress, as it gives different groups who might have missions for them. And they can then choose which ones to engage with. And that third could always be a splinter group. Some of the church folks are really taking a hard line, like a “burn down the village to save it.” Give the players a choice about who they might align themselves with.
There are a few groups, actually. Despite how I previously described it as just "Church v. Undead," it isn't as simple as that.
While one is most definitely less "evil" than the other, there are inner factions with more gray morals. Especially within the undead, since they aren't only undead, just most of them. Included in their armies are humans(mostly necromancers, or vampiric vassals serving until they can be turned), and fiends(usually thought of as the "big guns" of the battalions they're in). Factions can range from the vampiric "family," to the small, closely-knit safe haven where a single necromancer instead spends their time restoring the minds of those they've returned, if only to give their undeath peace.
Within the Church, there are also a few groups, although they're more unified than their enemies. 2 notable factions would be the more radical believers, who, like you mentioned, would be much more willing to burn everything, or, "make necessary sacrifices." And within the ranks of the Church, there are also deceivers, spies, and other-such enemies, biding time for the undeath.
And finally, the true neutral faction; witches. Mostly just there to be chaotic, and to watch the unfolding drama(and to generally assist in making things worse/more interesting for themselves). Think of traditional Feys or other such frivolous beings that don't really care much for the current state of the world. Although, despite the average witch's apathy, many of the "problems" currently faced are direct consequences of the actions of some witches, though mostly just one. "Witch" is used as a more loose term, if only to describe their mysticism, arcane prowess, and roots in dark forces.
Part of the campaign I hope to get across is the shades of gray, first starting by showing the party what many believe the war is like, than showing what it really is.
So, I say this so often regulars on the forum will be sick of it, but it is honestly because so many people make this mistake.
You aren't the writer when you create a campaign. Don't think of a campaign in terms of 'plot'. A lot of folks on social media make this mistake too. Instead as a GM and as the designer of a campaign you're exactly that - a designer. Think of yourself more like a level designer putting together something of interest for the players at large.
Skyrim and Fallout games are great inspiration for an adventure like the one you propose. In Skyrim there is the option of running straight at the dragons and dealing only with them. You can 'complete' the main plot real quickly. Or, you can avoid the first 'proper' dragon encounter and thus never see any at all. Instead you run around as player doing all the random side stuff. As you explore the world you can find numerous examples of great environmental storytelling...but so much in both Fallout 4 and Skyrim is optional. Like entirely optional.
Sure, scripted events and big set pieces are going to be the cornerstone on which the entire world hangs. That's to be expected, but players will always find a way to surprise you. Try to be fluid in the way you set up the pieces and the events that might occur in the world. TTRPGs and the campaigns played with them aren't plots, or stories that can be 'finished'. They're living worlds which in the best cases your players get to influence and even alter just because of their presence.
The big take away I guess I'd be suggesting here is that you might want to try and think in terms of giving the players a menu of things to choose from. There's the group of zombies terrorising the village if the players turn left, or if they turn right, there's a vampire spawn just learning what their powers are. If the player characters stay where they are and chill, a spawn of Kryuss might wander into their camp.
If you ever find yourself thinking in terms of 'plot' though, stop what you're doing and check in. The likelihood is that you're creating a railroad not an open adventure campaign. To be clear though, there's nothing wrong with a railroad if that's what you want. As a friend and player I have likes to say though, 'a DM that is crafting a plot should stop GMing and start writing their novel.' I find he's not wrong. There are so many GMs who think of the story as theirs...it isn't - it belongs to the players AND the GM while playing the actual sessions. With that said, if you do find yourself venturing into the plot mindset there is another source of inspiration - fighting fantasy choose your own adventure books. You can create a different type of campaign that is a mild railroad if you try to effectively create a choose your own adventure. For some DMs and players the approach works very well. Effectively you create say six different paths that the adventure can take. Then you work out where each path diverges.
Path 1 - Players do exactly what you first expect and end up at the final battle. Path 2 - Players decide to gain enough power that they can get to Sigil and find a new plane of existence to call home. Path 3 - Players decide to assemble an army of their own, calling on diplomatic skills and courting all of the major powers in the world to stand against the big bad.
Without knowing huge detail of your world I'll stop there, but hopefully you get the idea.
You aren't the writer when you create a campaign. Don't think of a campaign in terms of 'plot'. A lot of folks on social media make this mistake too. Instead as a GM and as the designer of a campaign you're exactly that - a designer. Think of yourself more like a level designer putting together something of interest for the players at large.
Well, you're still the writer. What you aren't is the storyteller. However, I disagree with the idea of considering yourself a level designer, because that also puts you in the wrong mindset.
The core thing to realize is that published adventures and games can be used for inspiration, but should not be used as models, because there's a core difference between a published adventure or game and an in-person game: in a published work, if players go off on a tangent, you can't retroactively edit the work to say what happens, which means you need to figure out, ahead of time, where the players can go and what they can interact with, and have tools to get them back to the story if they wander too far. In a game with a DM, if players go off into the blank spots on the map, you can just fill it in as they go. The challenge is being able to fill things in a way that's fast enough and interesting enough.
If you're not going pure improv (which is hard to do), one classic way of doing this is to have a bunch of partially prepared encounters, events, NPCs, places of interest, and so on. You don't have to create them all yourself, there are plenty of supplements with large numbers of NPCs and encounters designed to fit into a campaign, though you should personalize them so they fit your campaign. Then, when the PCs go off on a wild tangent, find something that fits the tangent and plop it down.
This means you can start with pretty minimalist grand shape of the world planning
So, I say this so often regulars on the forum will be sick of it, but it is honestly because so many people make this mistake.
You aren't the writer when you create a campaign. Don't think of a campaign in terms of 'plot'. A lot of folks on social media make this mistake too. Instead as a GM and as the designer of a campaign you're exactly that - a designer. Think of yourself more like a level designer putting together something of interest for the players at large.
This. It makes a lot of sense with the way you word it, and I completely agree. When it comes to how I write a campaign, I try to remain with the more general parts of the story, rather than the entire thing(though, as I wrote before, I do struggle with railroading my campaigns). I think the best way I could describe it is that while I as the DM try to construct the skeleton of a campaign, structuring the most basic parts, the players flesh it out with their own choices, decisions, and actions. Or at least, I'd hope to make it like that.
But, I still, admittedly, like to write certain parts of the campaign preemptively, in terms of enemies, NPCs, and areas, just to prepare. Though all/most of it would be subject to change, according to player input.
All that's to say, I fully agree with your points. Besides, this post(and probably all the other ones I'll end up making for this campaign) is entirely to grow and change my skills and style as a DM. So feedback like this is greatly appreciated, thanks.
But, I still, admittedly, like to write certain parts of the campaign preemptively, in terms of enemies, NPCs, and areas, just to prepare. Though all/most of it would be subject to change, according to player input.
That’s common and a big part of world and campaign building. But the big thing to remember is the characters may not ever interact with it. No matter how much you might expect them to turn left at the crossroads, no matter how many hints you gave them that the best option would be to turn left at the crossroads, they may not turn left. They may decide not to turn at all, and instead open up an inn.
The big way to avoid a railroad is to let them. Maybe they do turn left, maybe right, maybe they double back. You let them decide where to go and just be ready to roll with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi,
This isn't by any means my first campaign, but it is something I'm trying to put a lot of effort and work into, and I'm also trying to change up some of my DM-ing style for this.
The plot goes somewhat like this;
After 20 years, the Church has all but fallen in their crusade against the blight of the Undead. Now, they scramble to assemble even a small battalion. With no other choice, they hire any adventurer, mercenary, or warrior they can.
Now tasked with assisting in the war efforts on their campaign of genocide, you, and your fellow party-members, must face the unrelenting armies of those who yet live, even as far deep as their Felled Lord, sitting on his throne of decay and ruination.
Fear. Hunt. Eradicate.
For all that shimmers and scorns shall one day fall.
Out of Narration-mode now, the campaign is pretty straightforward;
Assist the Church in their war on the Undead, extra side-quests between lore-heavy main-quests, and uncover the secrets of the Undead's origins. The campaign will go all the way to level 20 (haven't decided on the starting level), and will end with the BBEG, the Lord of the Undead. And, just to clear anything up, this is a fully homebrewed campaign, although I pulled heavy inspiration from a lot of different DnD sourcebooks covering the lower planes, especially Acheron Book's Inferno (definitely recommend checking it out, it's great).
My hope for this campaign is a lore-filled, high-difficulty campaign for 4-6 people, and is highly interactive with both he player's back stories and something more free-form, and less railroad-ed(a big problem I come across in a lot of my campaigns).
I've already gotten so many ideas swirling in my head, but I've never made such an extensive or homebrewed world, so I'm finding it a bit difficult to sort everything out.
And, if anyone finds the campaign interesting, you're more than welcome to take any and/or all the ideas.
This is my first post, and I've really only made this account for feedback/advice on this campaign.
Hope to update soon.
All comments are appreciated and welcomed!
Reformed Forever-DM, Metaphorics Fanatic, Lawful Evil Gargantuan Fiend
The big thing that jumps out at me is, don’t assume you’ll hit level 20, unless you’re starting at 19 or something. Usually if you decide it’s going to go to a specific level, it ends up with either a bunch of filler, or otherwise forces things either too long or too short.
By all means keep it open as an option, but try to just let the story unfold and end whenever it naturally wants to end. More often, the story will want to wrap up sooner — particularly when the concept is as straightforward as this one.
Also, from a metagame perspective, it takes a long time, irl, to get to 20. Players get itchy to try a new character, or otherwise change the tone of the campaign.
I suppose you are right about that. I mostly have that "goal" in the sense that I intend this campaign to go up to high-level play. So, it's more accurate to say the campaign would hopefully end at the later levels of the game.
Admittedly, when it comes to leveling up in the group I usually run with(regardless of who's the DM at the time), we usually end up leveling up quite quickly, around a level every 2-3 sessions, so something like getting to level 20 doesn't usually take as long as it does in some other groups. I'll likely do more around 4-5, if not more, but it's a helpful reminder that I need to keep things fresh without relying on just level ups, thanks.
On that topic of keeping things fresh(relatively) between level ups, and in general through the entire campaign, there is one glaring issue I need to address, mostly just for my own growth as a DM; railroading, or rather, not railroading. Especially when it comes to one of my more engaged players(not to call them out for anything bad, they're great), something like a preset, forced path isn't the kind of game many of my players enjoy. And, with the entire game structured on fighting specifically undead enemies(and a lot of fiends, but still, not a diverse range), it can get monotonous. That's partly why the idea of side quests of sorts came to mind. Not only would it break up all the constant undead enemies with more interesting encounters, but it would also make the party's experience less forced, since they could pick and choose additional content. And, it gives me the opportunity to try new ideas and use some of the more obscure lore of the setting. So, all around a good move, though I'd still like to come up with some other ways to make the campaign less forced.
Reformed Forever-DM, Metaphorics Fanatic, Lawful Evil Gargantuan Fiend
The problem with a long-running campaign with a single main plot arc is that you want the PCs to be able to do something towards their main quest even at the start of the game, and it's hard to give a real sense of progress while still dragging the game out to a 1-20 arc. You may wish to introduce multiple adversary groups (who might also be adversaries to one another; this is useful early game to explain how the PCs are able to be relevant) so they can work for a while against one adversary group, maybe defeat them or maybe get distracted, and then switch to a new adversary group.
Within the context of your idea, some thoughts:
So, to avoid railroading in the campaign you described. The biggest thing is to give the players chances to opt out. You have this overarching plot of church v. Undead. Let the PCs ignore it. There should be consequences, but it should be an option. Like they just decide they don’t care about saving that one town from the zombies, they have other priorities. Allow them to go deal with those priorities. The town will, of course, fall to the zombies, which will be bad. But the choice they made will allow for something good to happen somewhere else.
Also, I’d suggest a third faction. Right now it’s very white hats and black hats. Throw in a third power center to allow for the formation of alliances and for double crossing. Maybe 2 more, but most players can’t keep straight more than 3-4 groups. That also helps relieve railroad stress, as it gives different groups who might have missions for them. And they can then choose which ones to engage with.
And that third could always be a splinter group. Some of the church folks are really taking a hard line, like a “burn down the village to save it.” Give the players a choice about who they might align themselves with.
Makes sense, yeah. And, specifically about the idea of "lieutenants," I'd mostly already thought of something similar. Mostly along the lines of different Undead's representing aspects of life, and how different attachments to life drive people to be more wary of the time they have.
For instance, the most fleshed-out of these lieutenants so far is an elder vampire, who now leads a "family" of other vampires, each stolen from their old families and then forcibly turned. I even have the idea for one of these vampiric "children" who deserted, even going as far as to assist in the war on the other side, all for the sake that more loved ones aren't taken away.
The others are less designed, more concept, but I'm trying to think up 4-ish, with a full "council" of the BBEG's lieutenants being 8, though also includes fiends as well as undead.
Reformed Forever-DM, Metaphorics Fanatic, Lawful Evil Gargantuan Fiend
There are a few groups, actually. Despite how I previously described it as just "Church v. Undead," it isn't as simple as that.
While one is most definitely less "evil" than the other, there are inner factions with more gray morals. Especially within the undead, since they aren't only undead, just most of them. Included in their armies are humans(mostly necromancers, or vampiric vassals serving until they can be turned), and fiends(usually thought of as the "big guns" of the battalions they're in). Factions can range from the vampiric "family," to the small, closely-knit safe haven where a single necromancer instead spends their time restoring the minds of those they've returned, if only to give their undeath peace.
Within the Church, there are also a few groups, although they're more unified than their enemies. 2 notable factions would be the more radical believers, who, like you mentioned, would be much more willing to burn everything, or, "make necessary sacrifices." And within the ranks of the Church, there are also deceivers, spies, and other-such enemies, biding time for the undeath.
And finally, the true neutral faction; witches. Mostly just there to be chaotic, and to watch the unfolding drama(and to generally assist in making things worse/more interesting for themselves). Think of traditional Feys or other such frivolous beings that don't really care much for the current state of the world. Although, despite the average witch's apathy, many of the "problems" currently faced are direct consequences of the actions of some witches, though mostly just one. "Witch" is used as a more loose term, if only to describe their mysticism, arcane prowess, and roots in dark forces.
Part of the campaign I hope to get across is the shades of gray, first starting by showing the party what many believe the war is like, than showing what it really is.
Reformed Forever-DM, Metaphorics Fanatic, Lawful Evil Gargantuan Fiend
So, I say this so often regulars on the forum will be sick of it, but it is honestly because so many people make this mistake.
You aren't the writer when you create a campaign. Don't think of a campaign in terms of 'plot'. A lot of folks on social media make this mistake too. Instead as a GM and as the designer of a campaign you're exactly that - a designer. Think of yourself more like a level designer putting together something of interest for the players at large.
Skyrim and Fallout games are great inspiration for an adventure like the one you propose. In Skyrim there is the option of running straight at the dragons and dealing only with them. You can 'complete' the main plot real quickly. Or, you can avoid the first 'proper' dragon encounter and thus never see any at all. Instead you run around as player doing all the random side stuff. As you explore the world you can find numerous examples of great environmental storytelling...but so much in both Fallout 4 and Skyrim is optional. Like entirely optional.
Sure, scripted events and big set pieces are going to be the cornerstone on which the entire world hangs. That's to be expected, but players will always find a way to surprise you. Try to be fluid in the way you set up the pieces and the events that might occur in the world. TTRPGs and the campaigns played with them aren't plots, or stories that can be 'finished'. They're living worlds which in the best cases your players get to influence and even alter just because of their presence.
The big take away I guess I'd be suggesting here is that you might want to try and think in terms of giving the players a menu of things to choose from. There's the group of zombies terrorising the village if the players turn left, or if they turn right, there's a vampire spawn just learning what their powers are. If the player characters stay where they are and chill, a spawn of Kryuss might wander into their camp.
If you ever find yourself thinking in terms of 'plot' though, stop what you're doing and check in. The likelihood is that you're creating a railroad not an open adventure campaign. To be clear though, there's nothing wrong with a railroad if that's what you want. As a friend and player I have likes to say though, 'a DM that is crafting a plot should stop GMing and start writing their novel.' I find he's not wrong. There are so many GMs who think of the story as theirs...it isn't - it belongs to the players AND the GM while playing the actual sessions. With that said, if you do find yourself venturing into the plot mindset there is another source of inspiration - fighting fantasy choose your own adventure books. You can create a different type of campaign that is a mild railroad if you try to effectively create a choose your own adventure. For some DMs and players the approach works very well. Effectively you create say six different paths that the adventure can take. Then you work out where each path diverges.
Path 1 - Players do exactly what you first expect and end up at the final battle.
Path 2 - Players decide to gain enough power that they can get to Sigil and find a new plane of existence to call home.
Path 3 - Players decide to assemble an army of their own, calling on diplomatic skills and courting all of the major powers in the world to stand against the big bad.
Without knowing huge detail of your world I'll stop there, but hopefully you get the idea.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Well, you're still the writer. What you aren't is the storyteller. However, I disagree with the idea of considering yourself a level designer, because that also puts you in the wrong mindset.
The core thing to realize is that published adventures and games can be used for inspiration, but should not be used as models, because there's a core difference between a published adventure or game and an in-person game: in a published work, if players go off on a tangent, you can't retroactively edit the work to say what happens, which means you need to figure out, ahead of time, where the players can go and what they can interact with, and have tools to get them back to the story if they wander too far. In a game with a DM, if players go off into the blank spots on the map, you can just fill it in as they go. The challenge is being able to fill things in a way that's fast enough and interesting enough.
If you're not going pure improv (which is hard to do), one classic way of doing this is to have a bunch of partially prepared encounters, events, NPCs, places of interest, and so on. You don't have to create them all yourself, there are plenty of supplements with large numbers of NPCs and encounters designed to fit into a campaign, though you should personalize them so they fit your campaign. Then, when the PCs go off on a wild tangent, find something that fits the tangent and plop it down.
This means you can start with pretty minimalist grand shape of the world planning
Hi, I wrote a few very cheap adventures which are undead-focused, I think you can easily pluder them.
I list them here in ascending level order:
1st-level: EBERRON24: The haunted shrine - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild
3rd-level: Greyhawk's Expeditions - Volume C: The Restless Mounds - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild
5th-level: EBERRON: Once upon a time in Q'Barra - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild / RAVNICA: The Stone in the Graveyard - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild
(the last 2 are bestsellers)
This. It makes a lot of sense with the way you word it, and I completely agree. When it comes to how I write a campaign, I try to remain with the more general parts of the story, rather than the entire thing(though, as I wrote before, I do struggle with railroading my campaigns). I think the best way I could describe it is that while I as the DM try to construct the skeleton of a campaign, structuring the most basic parts, the players flesh it out with their own choices, decisions, and actions. Or at least, I'd hope to make it like that.
But, I still, admittedly, like to write certain parts of the campaign preemptively, in terms of enemies, NPCs, and areas, just to prepare. Though all/most of it would be subject to change, according to player input.
All that's to say, I fully agree with your points. Besides, this post(and probably all the other ones I'll end up making for this campaign) is entirely to grow and change my skills and style as a DM. So feedback like this is greatly appreciated, thanks.
Reformed Forever-DM, Metaphorics Fanatic, Lawful Evil Gargantuan Fiend
That’s common and a big part of world and campaign building. But the big thing to remember is the characters may not ever interact with it. No matter how much you might expect them to turn left at the crossroads, no matter how many hints you gave them that the best option would be to turn left at the crossroads, they may not turn left. They may decide not to turn at all, and instead open up an inn.
The big way to avoid a railroad is to let them. Maybe they do turn left, maybe right, maybe they double back. You let them decide where to go and just be ready to roll with it.