I have been playing D&D for about 5+ years now and just recently within the last year or so started getting into Dungeon Mastering. I have a group of newbies that I introduced to the game through a few 1e modules converted to 5e adventures, and they loved it. Now I wanted to get my hands dirty and create a campaign from scratch.
I already have the plot of the campaign figured out for the most part. I am just not sure how to best create an immersive world and make my players fell that they aren't completely rail-roaded through the campaign. My main questions go as followed;
How many towns and cities in a Setting is enough/too many?
What makes a game feel like an open-world?
How much time should I spend on making this campaign before I let my player start playing?
How do I make this campaign relate to each of the characters that way, they all feel like the main character in the story.
Thanks!
P.S. And if anyone is wondering what the Campaign plot is, It is going to be about the Netflix show "Tiger King" My players are going after each of the main characters of the show and freeing Tabaxi from their enslavement.
I'm not sure you can "have the plot figured out for the most part", and not have your Party "completely railroaded through the Campaign".
Either they have freedom of choice - in which case I guarantee that they'll take the plot off in directions you hadn't planned, and you don't have it all figured out - or they don't - in which case you can have the plot all figured out, but the Players are going to be "completely railroaded through" it.
The correct level of detail you need in your campaign world is just enough so that everything the Characters look at and interact with, as well as the background events going on around them which aren't directly related to them ( everyday life, holidays and festivals, weather, etc. ) look like they are part of a fully realized, dynamic, and real world. It doesn't matter if the next block over from where they're standing is completely blanks and undesigned or not. What they see and interact with must look "real".
How much detail is that? That depends on you. Are you really good at improvising things off the top of your head - quickly, seamlessly, without creating unexpected complications and contradictions? Maybe all you need is a half-page of bullet points, some hastily scrawled rudimentary maps, and a list of random NPC names to slot in when you need one. Maybe you need more, and need to design and write down more. Your world building is for you. It is only useful for your Players insomuch as it allows you to present what feels like an actual world to them at all times.
A good starting point - until you get a better feel for how good you are at improvisation ( for now; you'll get better ) - is to fully detail the location they start in. If it's not too cliche for you is to start them in their own local village, because that's a modest amount of world building to start. Put a fair amount of detail into that. Then create as much detail for the surrounding areas as someone from that village would know: a moderate amount about surrounding towns & regions, general knowledge about the Barony they're in, sketchy knowledge about the Kingdom they're in, contradictory stories and rumors about surrounding Kingdoms. Sprinkle liberally with rumors, stories, and legends - which might end up being plot hooks for adventures. As the Players move through the World, design just one step ahead of them. They go to the next town over? Design that ( or improvise, record, and polish it later ). What you design, the amount you design, and when you design it, can be totally driven by the needs of the Campaign and the Characters' adventures.
Make sure that the detail around the Players looks like a real, vibrant, dynamic world. A good technique is to visualize the scene you're trying to paint, for yourself. Close your eyes and picture what you're describing to your Players. If you haven't got enough detail to make it feel "real" ( or better yet, a scene out of a movie ) you'll know it - add more details and nuances until it does feel like a movie scene. And - I can't stress this enough - take notes of anything and everything you improvise. Remember it, polish it, make it a part of your worldbuilding. You must be consistent in what you present to the Players.
What makes the world feel open? Give the Players freedom to go where they want, and do what they want. That doesn't mean chaos - you can still provide them with clear, concrete adventure goals and direction: the local Blacksmith has hired them to go rescue his daughter from the Goblins. That's a concrete goal, possibly with a time limit. The game still has structure. But if the Players feel that at any time, they could blow that off and go do whatever they wanted, the world will feel open. If they do that, allow it - but have the world change, and the NPCs react accordingly. They can abandon the Blacksmith's daughter to her fate - but their reception if they ever come back to that town will reflect their dereliction.
As for involving your Characters in your Campaign and your World - you need to know what the Players want out of the game, what they want out of their Characters, for them to create detailed nuanced Characters ( that is backstory ), and then make those backstory elements relevant by weaving them into the events of the world, and of your Campaign. Give you Players nuanced NPCs which are relatable, recognizable, and sympathetic people. Give them villains which they - the Players themselves, not just the Characters - will hate, and want to oppose. Give them people and places to defend which remind the Players of real world people towards which they are sympathetic. Give the Players moral quandaries where there is no one right answer, and make them deliberate over their actions, and then show them the consequences of those actions in the world around them ( although do also give them satisfying clear cut black hat villain to vanquish and feel good about defeating as well ).
Welcome to the hot seat ;) It's a lot of work - but it's an amazing amount of fun, as well :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To start out with the starting town and surrounding area is enough to detail. The rest can be rough-sketched until you need it later.
I agree with Vedexent about the plot. I would say rather than having a plot for your campaign, let the players decide that sort of thing. As a DM what I do (or at least, what I'm doing right now) is I have a plot -- as in a plan -- for the bad guys. They are doing stuff. If the players don't interfere, the bad guys keep doing stuff and maybe eventually succeed. Sooner or later the bad stuff they are doing will come to the players' attention. Sooner if the players pick up on and willingly follow the clues I've left them to find, later if they don't pick up on them or do but ignore them.
The world keeps spinning around them, and I control that part, but the players should control how they react to the spinning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To start out with the starting town and surrounding area is enough to detail. The rest can be rough-sketched until you need it later.
I agree with Vedexent about the plot. I would say rather than having a plot for your campaign, let the players decide that sort of thing. As a DM what I do (or at least, what I'm doing right now) is I have a plot -- as in a plan -- for the bad guys. They are doing stuff. If the players don't interfere, the bad guys keep doing stuff and maybe eventually succeed. Sooner or later the bad stuff they are doing will come to the players' attention. Sooner if the players pick up on and willingly follow the clues I've left them to find, later if they don't pick up on them or do but ignore them.
The world keeps spinning around them, and I control that part, but the players should control how they react to the spinning.
I agree with this. For me, Adventures start with a Conflict or issue, NPCs and Factions - all with their own goals, resources & personalities which leads to their planned next step - and "end states" which determine when the Conflict is over ( it also ends when everyone walks away from the conflict ). Then I just "role play" out the next planned step of each NPC or Faction, and determine where those planned actions will intersect. Where they intersect with the Party, that's an Encounter. If it doesn't involve the Party, that gets resolved "offstage" - sometimes just on gut feel, or what would be the most dramatically interesting plausible outcome - sometimes by a die roll. Those offstage "encounters" still change the world around the Characters, and they'll hear about it ( the grizzled bartender leans in and mutters, "you didn't hear about what happened down on the docks? Someone jumped Castilano, took out two of his men. The whole Black Hand brotherhood is turning the city upside down trying to find out who tried to take out their guildmaster ... " ). If - for some reason - the Party never got involved, or swept up in the events, I'd end up playing a little game of Adventure solitaire I guess - but the campaign world would be different at the end of that, than when it started.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks so much for the input! I will keep writing and keep all that in mind. I basically create the ocean while the players sail the ship. Much appreciated, and I'm very excited to get started.
If - for some reason - the Party never got involved, or swept up in the events, I'd end up playing a little game of Adventure solitaire I guess - but the campaign world would be different at the end of that, than when it started.
That sounds way more involved than what I am doing, but my campaign has just started.
Right now I just have a plan for the villains and the dates on which the villains will complete each step of the various steps they need to succeed in their goal, if the players do not take measures to stop them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The problem I have with pre-planning like that, is that so many GMs get trapped in "this is what I planned, so this is what is going to happened", or worse "this is what the Players are going to do so that this happens".
Pre-planning out plot steps either means you throw that work away when the Players go "off the rails" ( although you did account for that ), or you are tempted to shove them down those rails. In your example of creating an agenda with dates and events for your antagonists, " if the players do not take measures to stop them", it's almost guaranteed that some of that is wasted design effort. In fact, if some of it is not wasted effort, your Adventure failed, because the Party never bit on the plot hook.
I put my planning energies into detailing the people ( or I guess agents, since in a fantasy setting so not all the actors need to be "people" per se ), groups, locations, and situations. I find that if I have that, figuring out "what will X try and do next", in "real time" is next to effortless. It also has the advantage that Players cannot "derail" the plot, since the plot doesn't exist until they get there.
However, that kind of dynamic plot approach means running can be more complex. Things like pacing, plot beats, atmosphere, dramatic tension, etc. - these are important to the game, and now those have to all be managed on the fly, which is much harder than if you've got a flowchart and know you want to get to "box 9" by the end of the night. Having a handful of plot complications, or events, in my back pocket which I can throw into the stream of events to change the pace, or level of tension, is a good technique, I find.
Plus, I like to be surprised as well :) With a dynamic plot approach, I get to discover what happens right alongside the Players.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You have gotten some very good advice already from Vedexent and BioWizard! Here's a more hands on approach to your questions:
How many towns and cities in a Setting is enough/too many?
Depends a lot on the setting. If you start in a city, you perhaps want to keep all interesting places within the city walls, if you start in a small village, you might want to include some places in the surrounding area. I would say that if you have three to six interesting places/options for the players to visit for your first session, you are probably OK. If it is a city, think of it as the top six results on trip advisor. It's not places the players have to go, but it is places they can go if they want. This is important to remember. Don't "overdo" preparations. If you spend a lot of time preparing an NPC, place or something, and the players just isn't interested, don't force it upon them - it doesn't make a good story.
What makes a game feel like an open-world?
This is a big question! To be a little "hard" with you: you cannot make them feel it is an open world, you have to make it one. It doesn't mean there can't be a plot, but if you want an open world, you have to accept that the players can derail your plans entirely. To me, 'open world' means that I present the players with a problem, if they want to do anything about it, they have to find a way to solve it. My advice to create an 'open world' kind of campaign would be: First you have to make sure the players are actually engaged in your "plot". Give them hooks, give them reasons to want to "solve" the plot. I would say that a little railroading is completely OK here, but I would have done it before session 1. Have the players define why they are journying together, and simply say that at the start of the campaign they have agreed to do a job for someone. That is 100% railroading in a kind of way, but it saves you a lot of time. Then you can let them loose in an open world. The clue here is to not have created a path for the players, but rather a world where they can use their imagination to solve the problem you have created.
How much time should I spend on making this campaign before I let my player start playing?
My advice would be: not very much. I never plan for more than next session. I might flesh out the world, what is happening etc, but when it comes to actually planning what will happen at a session, I never plan for more than the next one. I would however strongly advice that you "plan" for some real planning after session 1. Even with a session 0 (which is a good idea), it's really first when you have seen the PC's in action you'll know what ever they are going to do. If you want to play in an 'open world' I think this is crucial. Planning is something you actually do after a session, not before. That's when you sit down and decides how your world "reacts" to the players actions.
How do I make this campaign relate to each of the characters that way, they all feel like the main character in the story.
A very concrete advice is at least to be quite "hard" with the players when they create the characters. If someone has a concept you don't see how will be engaged in the plot, tell them. Players can have a lot of brilliant ideas, but it is your responsibility to make sure that this particular idea actually is fun to play in this campaign. I would also say that creating a reason for the players to hang together before you start to play often is a good idea. That way you hopefully doesn't end up in the situation where one of the characters suddenly feels he has no reason to stay.
Pre-planning out plot steps either means you throw that work away when the Players go "off the rails" ( although you did account for that ), or you are tempted to shove them down those rails. In your example of creating an agenda with dates and events for your antagonists, " if the players do not take measures to stop them", it's almost guaranteed that some of that is wasted design effort. In fact, if some of it is not wasted effort, your Adventure failed, because the Party never bit on the plot hook.
I'm not sure what you mean about wasted effort. There are no rails to 'shove them down.' Things are happening in the world. I know what will happen when if the heroes don't interfere. It's a bulleted outline (and not a very long one at that). I'm not sure how that is putting a lot of effort into it compared to what you are describing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There is some solid discussion in this thread. As a new DM in the creation process of a campaign and starting adventure for the party I have been wrestling with the idea of open world vs railroad. It seems to me like open world is just a bunch of side questing or meaningless fights as you travel around aimlessly and if you want to tell a grand story you have to be an evil genius mastermind of improvisation of a DM that could only come with many years of experience or by complete luck you happen to be born with required skill set to do so.
I want to tell stories, I know at least some of my players want grand stories as well. So far none of them have provided me with backstories so I can’t do anything with that and I want them to have something to do that is more than just killing the band of goblins attacking traveling merchants and whatnot. I also don’t even want to run a game like that it sounds boring.
sorry for being so blunt, but in reality I am really struggling with this battle because I don’t want to “railroad” my players and they should have free will to go and do as they please but I feel like then it just becomes - oh ok, so you go to Tremblewood Forest where I have nothing prepared? Looks like we’re fighting a pack of wolves for no reason. yay. Now I know I could keep some encounters in my back pocket and add some kind of reason for why the wolves have suddenly grown aggressive in the area but then it just seems like sidequesting over and over with little story.
I don’t know, maybe I just need to be thrown into the fire to really understand but with the world the way it is now who knows when that will even be and it’s driving me crazy I just want to play D&D!
Your observations are quite accurate, but you kind of overvalue the need to be a mastermind of improvisation to play in a more open world. My advice would be, just do it, jump into the fire. There will be errors and mistakes - sure - but there will also be a lot of fun. Still after years of DM'ing, you will do mistakes, but you will do fewer, and you will catch them earlier.
But you kind of underestimate characters "reasoning". Why would they go to Tremblewood Forest? Open world doesn't mean (at least not to me): "hand out a map to your players and ask them where they want to go." You control the world, if you tell them there is a treasure hidden deep within that forest, they might choose to go there, if you don't, they quite probably won't.
But that doesn't mean that sometimes you will end up in a situation where you have "no idea" or reason for a thing to happen. That's OK! The only thing you actually have to do to give reason to your wolf attack, is that an NPC mentions to the players that there have been lots of wolves in the forest lately. It's not a very strong set up, but it "works".
My advice is: Try not to prepare beyond the first session when it comes to the story or plot. You can prepare the world and what the NPC's in that will do if the characters don't do anything, but don't overdue this. AFTER the first session, ask your players what they want to do next, then prepare for that. Most of the time they will "stick" to that plan, and not randomly run of to a random place. The few times that happens, it is usually because you by mistake made the course they wanted to try to hard or difficult.
As someone who has been searching for this answer for weeks. Thank you. Thank. You... This is one of the best and most succinct passages I've seen on how to get started as a beginner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello All,
I have been playing D&D for about 5+ years now and just recently within the last year or so started getting into Dungeon Mastering. I have a group of newbies that I introduced to the game through a few 1e modules converted to 5e adventures, and they loved it. Now I wanted to get my hands dirty and create a campaign from scratch.
I already have the plot of the campaign figured out for the most part. I am just not sure how to best create an immersive world and make my players fell that they aren't completely rail-roaded through the campaign. My main questions go as followed;
Thanks!
P.S. And if anyone is wondering what the Campaign plot is, It is going to be about the Netflix show "Tiger King" My players are going after each of the main characters of the show and freeing Tabaxi from their enslavement.
I'm not sure you can "have the plot figured out for the most part", and not have your Party "completely railroaded through the Campaign".
Either they have freedom of choice - in which case I guarantee that they'll take the plot off in directions you hadn't planned, and you don't have it all figured out - or they don't - in which case you can have the plot all figured out, but the Players are going to be "completely railroaded through" it.
The correct level of detail you need in your campaign world is just enough so that everything the Characters look at and interact with, as well as the background events going on around them which aren't directly related to them ( everyday life, holidays and festivals, weather, etc. ) look like they are part of a fully realized, dynamic, and real world. It doesn't matter if the next block over from where they're standing is completely blanks and undesigned or not. What they see and interact with must look "real".
How much detail is that? That depends on you. Are you really good at improvising things off the top of your head - quickly, seamlessly, without creating unexpected complications and contradictions? Maybe all you need is a half-page of bullet points, some hastily scrawled rudimentary maps, and a list of random NPC names to slot in when you need one. Maybe you need more, and need to design and write down more. Your world building is for you. It is only useful for your Players insomuch as it allows you to present what feels like an actual world to them at all times.
A good starting point - until you get a better feel for how good you are at improvisation ( for now; you'll get better ) - is to fully detail the location they start in. If it's not too cliche for you is to start them in their own local village, because that's a modest amount of world building to start. Put a fair amount of detail into that. Then create as much detail for the surrounding areas as someone from that village would know: a moderate amount about surrounding towns & regions, general knowledge about the Barony they're in, sketchy knowledge about the Kingdom they're in, contradictory stories and rumors about surrounding Kingdoms. Sprinkle liberally with rumors, stories, and legends - which might end up being plot hooks for adventures. As the Players move through the World, design just one step ahead of them. They go to the next town over? Design that ( or improvise, record, and polish it later ). What you design, the amount you design, and when you design it, can be totally driven by the needs of the Campaign and the Characters' adventures.
Make sure that the detail around the Players looks like a real, vibrant, dynamic world. A good technique is to visualize the scene you're trying to paint, for yourself. Close your eyes and picture what you're describing to your Players. If you haven't got enough detail to make it feel "real" ( or better yet, a scene out of a movie ) you'll know it - add more details and nuances until it does feel like a movie scene. And - I can't stress this enough - take notes of anything and everything you improvise. Remember it, polish it, make it a part of your worldbuilding. You must be consistent in what you present to the Players.
What makes the world feel open? Give the Players freedom to go where they want, and do what they want. That doesn't mean chaos - you can still provide them with clear, concrete adventure goals and direction: the local Blacksmith has hired them to go rescue his daughter from the Goblins. That's a concrete goal, possibly with a time limit. The game still has structure. But if the Players feel that at any time, they could blow that off and go do whatever they wanted, the world will feel open. If they do that, allow it - but have the world change, and the NPCs react accordingly. They can abandon the Blacksmith's daughter to her fate - but their reception if they ever come back to that town will reflect their dereliction.
As for involving your Characters in your Campaign and your World - you need to know what the Players want out of the game, what they want out of their Characters, for them to create detailed nuanced Characters ( that is backstory ), and then make those backstory elements relevant by weaving them into the events of the world, and of your Campaign. Give you Players nuanced NPCs which are relatable, recognizable, and sympathetic people. Give them villains which they - the Players themselves, not just the Characters - will hate, and want to oppose. Give them people and places to defend which remind the Players of real world people towards which they are sympathetic. Give the Players moral quandaries where there is no one right answer, and make them deliberate over their actions, and then show them the consequences of those actions in the world around them ( although do also give them satisfying clear cut black hat villain to vanquish and feel good about defeating as well ).
Welcome to the hot seat ;) It's a lot of work - but it's an amazing amount of fun, as well :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To start out with the starting town and surrounding area is enough to detail. The rest can be rough-sketched until you need it later.
I agree with Vedexent about the plot. I would say rather than having a plot for your campaign, let the players decide that sort of thing. As a DM what I do (or at least, what I'm doing right now) is I have a plot -- as in a plan -- for the bad guys. They are doing stuff. If the players don't interfere, the bad guys keep doing stuff and maybe eventually succeed. Sooner or later the bad stuff they are doing will come to the players' attention. Sooner if the players pick up on and willingly follow the clues I've left them to find, later if they don't pick up on them or do but ignore them.
The world keeps spinning around them, and I control that part, but the players should control how they react to the spinning.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with this. For me, Adventures start with a Conflict or issue, NPCs and Factions - all with their own goals, resources & personalities which leads to their planned next step - and "end states" which determine when the Conflict is over ( it also ends when everyone walks away from the conflict ). Then I just "role play" out the next planned step of each NPC or Faction, and determine where those planned actions will intersect. Where they intersect with the Party, that's an Encounter. If it doesn't involve the Party, that gets resolved "offstage" - sometimes just on gut feel, or what would be the most dramatically interesting plausible outcome - sometimes by a die roll. Those offstage "encounters" still change the world around the Characters, and they'll hear about it ( the grizzled bartender leans in and mutters, "you didn't hear about what happened down on the docks? Someone jumped Castilano, took out two of his men. The whole Black Hand brotherhood is turning the city upside down trying to find out who tried to take out their guildmaster ... " ). If - for some reason - the Party never got involved, or swept up in the events, I'd end up playing a little game of Adventure solitaire I guess - but the campaign world would be different at the end of that, than when it started.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks so much for the input! I will keep writing and keep all that in mind. I basically create the ocean while the players sail the ship. Much appreciated, and I'm very excited to get started.
That sounds way more involved than what I am doing, but my campaign has just started.
Right now I just have a plan for the villains and the dates on which the villains will complete each step of the various steps they need to succeed in their goal, if the players do not take measures to stop them.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The problem I have with pre-planning like that, is that so many GMs get trapped in "this is what I planned, so this is what is going to happened", or worse "this is what the Players are going to do so that this happens".
Pre-planning out plot steps either means you throw that work away when the Players go "off the rails" ( although you did account for that ), or you are tempted to shove them down those rails. In your example of creating an agenda with dates and events for your antagonists, " if the players do not take measures to stop them", it's almost guaranteed that some of that is wasted design effort. In fact, if some of it is not wasted effort, your Adventure failed, because the Party never bit on the plot hook.
I put my planning energies into detailing the people ( or I guess agents, since in a fantasy setting so not all the actors need to be "people" per se ), groups, locations, and situations. I find that if I have that, figuring out "what will X try and do next", in "real time" is next to effortless. It also has the advantage that Players cannot "derail" the plot, since the plot doesn't exist until they get there.
However, that kind of dynamic plot approach means running can be more complex. Things like pacing, plot beats, atmosphere, dramatic tension, etc. - these are important to the game, and now those have to all be managed on the fly, which is much harder than if you've got a flowchart and know you want to get to "box 9" by the end of the night. Having a handful of plot complications, or events, in my back pocket which I can throw into the stream of events to change the pace, or level of tension, is a good technique, I find.
Plus, I like to be surprised as well :) With a dynamic plot approach, I get to discover what happens right alongside the Players.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Depends a lot on the setting. If you start in a city, you perhaps want to keep all interesting places within the city walls, if you start in a small village, you might want to include some places in the surrounding area. I would say that if you have three to six interesting places/options for the players to visit for your first session, you are probably OK. If it is a city, think of it as the top six results on trip advisor. It's not places the players have to go, but it is places they can go if they want. This is important to remember. Don't "overdo" preparations. If you spend a lot of time preparing an NPC, place or something, and the players just isn't interested, don't force it upon them - it doesn't make a good story.
This is a big question! To be a little "hard" with you: you cannot make them feel it is an open world, you have to make it one. It doesn't mean there can't be a plot, but if you want an open world, you have to accept that the players can derail your plans entirely. To me, 'open world' means that I present the players with a problem, if they want to do anything about it, they have to find a way to solve it. My advice to create an 'open world' kind of campaign would be: First you have to make sure the players are actually engaged in your "plot". Give them hooks, give them reasons to want to "solve" the plot. I would say that a little railroading is completely OK here, but I would have done it before session 1. Have the players define why they are journying together, and simply say that at the start of the campaign they have agreed to do a job for someone. That is 100% railroading in a kind of way, but it saves you a lot of time. Then you can let them loose in an open world. The clue here is to not have created a path for the players, but rather a world where they can use their imagination to solve the problem you have created.
My advice would be: not very much. I never plan for more than next session. I might flesh out the world, what is happening etc, but when it comes to actually planning what will happen at a session, I never plan for more than the next one. I would however strongly advice that you "plan" for some real planning after session 1. Even with a session 0 (which is a good idea), it's really first when you have seen the PC's in action you'll know what ever they are going to do. If you want to play in an 'open world' I think this is crucial. Planning is something you actually do after a session, not before. That's when you sit down and decides how your world "reacts" to the players actions.
A very concrete advice is at least to be quite "hard" with the players when they create the characters. If someone has a concept you don't see how will be engaged in the plot, tell them. Players can have a lot of brilliant ideas, but it is your responsibility to make sure that this particular idea actually is fun to play in this campaign. I would also say that creating a reason for the players to hang together before you start to play often is a good idea. That way you hopefully doesn't end up in the situation where one of the characters suddenly feels he has no reason to stay.
Ludo ergo sum!
I'm not sure what you mean about wasted effort. There are no rails to 'shove them down.' Things are happening in the world. I know what will happen when if the heroes don't interfere. It's a bulleted outline (and not a very long one at that). I'm not sure how that is putting a lot of effort into it compared to what you are describing.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There is some solid discussion in this thread. As a new DM in the creation process of a campaign and starting adventure for the party I have been wrestling with the idea of open world vs railroad. It seems to me like open world is just a bunch of side questing or meaningless fights as you travel around aimlessly and if you want to tell a grand story you have to be an evil genius mastermind of improvisation of a DM that could only come with many years of experience or by complete luck you happen to be born with required skill set to do so.
I want to tell stories, I know at least some of my players want grand stories as well. So far none of them have provided me with backstories so I can’t do anything with that and I want them to have something to do that is more than just killing the band of goblins attacking traveling merchants and whatnot. I also don’t even want to run a game like that it sounds boring.
sorry for being so blunt, but in reality I am really struggling with this battle because I don’t want to “railroad” my players and they should have free will to go and do as they please but I feel like then it just becomes - oh ok, so you go to Tremblewood Forest where I have nothing prepared? Looks like we’re fighting a pack of wolves for no reason. yay. Now I know I could keep some encounters in my back pocket and add some kind of reason for why the wolves have suddenly grown aggressive in the area but then it just seems like sidequesting over and over with little story.
I don’t know, maybe I just need to be thrown into the fire to really understand but with the world the way it is now who knows when that will even be and it’s driving me crazy I just want to play D&D!
Hi CozmoTheGrey
Your observations are quite accurate, but you kind of overvalue the need to be a mastermind of improvisation to play in a more open world. My advice would be, just do it, jump into the fire. There will be errors and mistakes - sure - but there will also be a lot of fun. Still after years of DM'ing, you will do mistakes, but you will do fewer, and you will catch them earlier.
But you kind of underestimate characters "reasoning". Why would they go to Tremblewood Forest? Open world doesn't mean (at least not to me): "hand out a map to your players and ask them where they want to go." You control the world, if you tell them there is a treasure hidden deep within that forest, they might choose to go there, if you don't, they quite probably won't.
But that doesn't mean that sometimes you will end up in a situation where you have "no idea" or reason for a thing to happen. That's OK! The only thing you actually have to do to give reason to your wolf attack, is that an NPC mentions to the players that there have been lots of wolves in the forest lately. It's not a very strong set up, but it "works".
My advice is: Try not to prepare beyond the first session when it comes to the story or plot. You can prepare the world and what the NPC's in that will do if the characters don't do anything, but don't overdue this. AFTER the first session, ask your players what they want to do next, then prepare for that. Most of the time they will "stick" to that plan, and not randomly run of to a random place. The few times that happens, it is usually because you by mistake made the course they wanted to try to hard or difficult.
Ludo ergo sum!
Thanks guys. I guess I just gotta do it and learn the old fashioned way lol.
As someone who has been searching for this answer for weeks. Thank you. Thank. You... This is one of the best and most succinct passages I've seen on how to get started as a beginner.