Character-Driven Campaigns

From Tab Wiki

When you examine a role-playing game campaign, you can look at things from several different levels. One possibility is to look at the content of the campaign--whether the game is filled with ninjas or aliens, the elements of the setting. On another level, you can look at things more abstractly, examining the immediate structure of the campaign--such as: the player characters want the magical thingy, which is also sought after by the bad people and the player characters must attain the magical thing first and keep it away from the bad people. Finally, you can abstract even further and look at the assumptions in the structure--such as whether the conflict in the story of the campaign arises from actions initiated by the PCs or NPCs, or whether the role of the party's goal is that of the driving force behind the campaign or a excuse to justify the conflict created by the PCs.

With this last level of abstraction in mind, you can divide most campaigns into one of two categories based on the assumptions held in the campaign. I call these categories plot-based campaigns and character-based campaigns. The distinction between the two categories lies in the motivation and origin, of actions and conflicts, within the campaign. In the case of the plot-based campaign, the motivation behind the action in the campaign originates with the GM, who comes up with some sort of plot in mind and passes it on to the player characters in the game. For example, the GM may come up with a plot wherein a nobleman hires the PCs to go to a nearby cave and rid the cave of the bandits that have taken up residence there. In the game the PCs receive a letter from the nobleman asking for their help and promising a reward; the PCs then accept the job and travel to the cave to deal with the bandits. On the other hand, in the case of the character-based campaign, the origin of the motivation and conflict lies with the player characters; the role of the GM is to prepare the setting in which the player characters can act. For example, the GM prepares a mountain valley where the campaign will be set. The player characters can then move about the valley as they see fit; perhaps they stumble upon a cave filled with dangerous creatures and decide they wish to clear out the cave and renovate it as their own personal lair.

In this model, the characters drive the action in the campaign, deciding where they feel like going and what they feel like doing without it being necessary for a motivation external to the characters to push them in that direction. The GM runs the setting--which is a simulated world with its own happenings and NPCs--and stands back. In this way the setting is something of an elaborate prop--a sandbox that the player characters play around in as agents of change. Ideally the GM would have the world fully detailed ahead of time, prepared for whatever the players choose to do, as it is the whims and aims of the PCs directing themselves from place to place rather than the plot: thus the name "character-driven" versus "plot-driven". Perhaps the PCs have a map. In contrast, somewhat antithetical to this, is the usual plot-driven model wherein the characters don't go new places or hatch new plans unless they have been provided with a plot hook to act as a framework of where they go or what they plan to do.

Looking in detail at the character-based campaign model, it should be noted that in this type of campaign there are certain aspects that take on an increased importance. One such aspect is the thing that holds the party together. It is important that such a thing exist in the campaign, because without something holding the party together the campaign would devolve into the different player characters going their own ways to play around in the world individually, which does not make for a unified campaign. Care has to be given to the choice of what holds the party together, too. Ideally it is something that is solid enough to keep the characters together without being so restrictive as to exclude individual characters having goals and taking actions outside of the party's aims. If the thing holding he characters together is too weak, the campaign will come apart; if it is too restrictive, then the ways in which the player characters can interact with the setting and each other becomes too restricted, things are forced to be repetitive and the campaign suffers. Say, for example, that the players decide that their characters are together because they are all stalking a bad guy who wronged them in the past. The characters travel from place to place, following his trail and hoping to kill him. If this becomes the soul goal of the party, then it becomes overly-restrictive. The characters travel from place to place, but they ignore everything else going on, focusing only on catching the bad guy and moving on after figuring out that he's not there. This driving goal lends itself only to traveling and one conflict: catching and killing the bad guy. Ideally the thing holding the characters together should give a broad mandate for interesting things to do and conflicts that can be resolved. When it boils down to it, from the design point of view, the party's goal is just a device to justify the characters traveling around and making/finding conflict.

Here is an example character-driven campaign setup: The players before the campaign discuss and decide that they want to be an organizing force, establishing a new city-state in a wilderness region. When the campaign begins, they sit in a tavern and discuss their plans. They decide that they will begin by traveling from city to city in a populated region, asking around and recruiting people interested in moving to a new settlement. They then do this in game, recruiting different groups and resolving the conflict between the different groups that may not get along. The characters discuss again, choose a location (after a visit to their potential spot) and lead their recruits there, protecting them from dangerous fauna and helping people along the way (some of whom join in the expedition). They arrive, help in the building process, discuss, decide on the settlement laws and ruling structure (a city council that they will initially head) and begin to explore the surrounding areas. They come across a cavern system, decide to explore it to make sure it doesn't house a danger to their fledgling settlement, kill the dangers, take a vacation, the campaign goes on...

Another important aspect of the campaign that is of critical importance in a character-driven campaign is the genesis of the conflict within the campaign. Take for example the basic premise of Pinky and the Brain. In each segment the Brain comes up with a plan to take over the world and this initiates the conflict of the segment, complicated with further conflict from Pinky's ineptitude. It is important that the characters initiate conflict, as without it the campaign would be rather... lacking in excitement. On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of agreement between the players (preferably one worked into the design of the player characters) as to what sort of conflict to initiate in the campaign. Take for example the case of a PC that every town the party visits, walks into the tavern and runs the bartender through with a sword. This is a perfectly viable form of creating conflict, however, while some players may find this sort of conflict genesis grand, others may find it significantly less than desirable. This should illustrate that there needs to be some sort of agreement--explicit or not--between players on what sort of conflict is enjoyable for everyone involved.

This in mind, there are several basic categories of ways in which player characters may create/seek interesting conflict. I will detail these below:

• "Their problem is our problem." In this model the characters find some person or group in the campaign world who is already involved in a conflict and help them out. Examples of this include the party joining an army to be part of an attack force on a neighboring settlement, or the PCs agreeing to help terrorized villagers with their raiding-orc problem.
• "I have a plan." In this model one of the PCs or a group of PCs hatches a plan to do something and convinces the other PCs that enacting the plan would be a good thing to do. Examples of this include the PCs hatching a plan to take over the government, to get rich quick or to establish a thieves' guild in some city.
• "What happens if we push this button?" Simple curiosity and screwing with things can create all sorts of interesting conflict. Examples of this include the PCs deciding to see what's down the road, what's in the "abandoned" castle or what happens if they start pulling levels on the mysterious magical device.
• "He was an asshole anyway." When characters pursue an agenda there often are NPCs who have a conflicting agenda of their own. By pursuing some sort of plan, there's often a chain of causes and effects which generates secondary conflicts, such as foiling the assassination attempt of a rival faction that does not like the policies the characters are pushing for, or dealing with the guards that come running when the characters botch a attempted heist.

These are all good things to keep in mind, as character-driven campaigns require some different assumptions as to the role of the PCs in the action than do plot-driven campaigns. It requires greater initiative and greater conscientiousness on the part of the players, but the rewards are greater freedom and hopefully enjoyment.