toosigma

In my experience, there are two distinct styles of campaign - Active and Reactive - as judged from the player perspective.

In a reactive campaign, the GM is primarily responsible for plot advancement. He develops scenarios in advance that he thinks will intrigue and capture the imagination of the players, and during the actual session, the players usually follow the leads the GM provides. To use the derogatory terminology, the GM lays down Railroad Tracks, and the players dutifully follow them.

By contrast, in an active campaign, the players are chiefly responsible for plot advancement. The GM merely provides the backdrop and assumes roles as necessary, while the PCs take the initiative and seek out adventure.

Like most other aspects of life, this binary distinction actually represents a spectrum - a blending of the two styles with only the endpoints representing the true extremes. Either absolute will likely lead to decreased enjoyment. An absolute reactive campaign is the epitome of the often derided “Railroading GM” - a situation where the GM has already determined the outcome of the adventure, and is merely using the PCs as pawns in his storytelling. Such a campaign is often better expressed by having the GM write a novel, as the interactivity of the role-playing style is simply unnecessary. Of course, an absolutely active campaign isn’t much better - it’s a situation where the GM has no concept of a plot, and it is entirely determined by the players at play time. While it’s possible that the right group of players could enjoy this style, it is also plagued with pitfalls, the most prevalent of which is option paralysis. With the possibility for unlimited adventure in any direction, it’s possible the players will be unable to choose just one, or for each player to choose a different incompatible direction, resulting in an inelegant mish-mash as the GM struggles to weave everything together.

So it’s better to use a blend of the two play styles in developing a campaign (unless you’re certain that all your players really prefer to have an absolute of one type or the other). The types of preparation for each style are also subtly different, allowing a GM who knows the preferences of his players to focus his efforts on the more appropriate areas:

Reactive Preparation:

• Layout a basic plot structure - drawing on more traditional forms (novels, films, stories) to add drama and tension.
• Use a branching tree structure to resolve potential deviations from the basic plot. The more “active-oriented” your players are, the more time you should spend on this, possibly even using a sort of funneling-technique, routing players from side-plots back onto the main plot.
• The most common “reactive setting” is the dungeon. You can dramatically limit the players choices, making it easier for them to follow the path you’ve laid out.

Active Preparation

• Active campaigning requires a great deal more “winging-it” than reactive does. Since improvisation is not a common GM skill, active campaigns are more rare than reactive. Articles that teach improvisation (e.g. 8 tips to help you wing it) are crucial.
• Develop lists of NPCs, Quirks, Plot Hooks, or anything else you might need in a hurry. I prefer to keep a “master list” of each type, collating all the material I’ve collected. Before each session, I review the list and pick 5-15 items that I think are most likely to be useful. Trying to scan the master list during play is likely to slow things down, but the short-list can be quickly scanned and selected. If you don’t happen to have anything on the short-list, you should have refreshed your memory on the master list, and might be able to pluck something from the ether.
• The most appropriate setting for active campaigns is the city - a plethora of choices for the PCs.

My own tastes as a GM run toward reactive campaigns - partly because I’ve never managed to find a group that successfully “took the reins,” allowing for a more active campaign. I believe the failing lies in my style - I’ve never managed to figure out the process to hand over control to the PCs, such that they can take the reins. My attempts almost always result in option paralysis - giving the players so many choices that they can’t make a choice.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 7:09 am and is filed under game theory, rpg. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.