Moonhunter: That sounds like a solid way of doing it. By getting some input you can make sure that you’ll have something they won’t hate, but you have more control than fully collaborative world building would provide. That’s very handy, since you can ensure that it’ll be compatible with modules or other resources you intend to use.

1) Start with the tease: Preview a number of possible campaigns.
2) Poll your players I: Get bits and pieces they want to see in the game.
3) With a ruler and some tape: Preliminary World Building
4) Buy the Tickets Choosing the campaign.
5) With a ruler and some tape II: World Building
6) World Pack: Campaign Write Up
7) Casting: Group gets together to create characters
Poll the characters II: Get bits and pieces they want to see in the game.
9) Polish the work.
10) Start the game.

The whole article is found here: http://www.strolen.com/content.php?node=1461

So far as planning goes, it’s pretty hazy right now. Not even sure what kind of setting to use. The group world-creation might help with that – we could keep adding ‘ages’ until we get to a ShadowRun level of technology (+3 ages), stop at DnD Modern (+2), Steampunk (+1), or straight-up medieval fantasy. The Dawn of Worlds link will probably start to creak from overuse

(By the way, I really like Related Articles links – it reminded me of a couple posts I could use right about now, and introduced a few new ones.)

And Pirates make everything better. Arrrr!

Everyone put most of their points into Shennanigans and Action, and almost no one put points into Exploration. That being the sort of game I have the easiest time running, anyway, things worked out. We ended up with a bit more intrigue and storyline than I had originally planned, but the players seemed to like it.

The second survey question was, “At some point, I would like to fight…” and then a blank. One of the players filled in, “A princess,” so the second session, that’s what happened. I would never have come up with it on my own, but it was definitely one of the most memorable sessions of the game.

The final question was, “At some point, I would like to” followed by a list of options. I asked them to circle anything that looked interesting, and star the most important ones. I tried to include at least 3-4 of each player’s circled options in the campaign, and all of the starred options. I mostly succeeded, though some of the more divergent ones never came up. Oddly, every single player circled both “Be on the right side of the law” and “Be on the wrong side of the law.”

Having both specific and broad goals helped me a lot in terms of planning. If I didn’t know what to do for the next session, I would just look at the players’ lists, and see what I hadn’t crossed off yet that might fit in with the current plot. Then I’d just make sure the session included the requisite mix of action and shennanigans (never difficult), throw in a bit of story and intrigue, and I was done.

I want even more of a kick-in-the-door feel for my next campaign, so I’ll probably warn the players in advance. Other than that, I’m up for anything, though I am partial to that “anything” including pirates.

Funny thing is that the other players started acting a bit crazy and forced the cleric to do a lot of stuff against his own nature. At the end of a few sessions the party has done more harm the good in the campaign, which I thought was funny.

@Rafe: It is funny you mentioned about the stereotype. The players that have played with me for awhile already know not to assume too in the campaign. A rich lady shopping around in the city may be way more evil than some kobolds attacking them in the woods.

I’ve always found it funny when a DM would ask for a nice, in-depth background… and then never use it. So I thought I’d ask for a background that had some meat in it, but that didn’t have to be long. Some of my players are less proactive, though. With those, I simply take them aside as we’re doing character creation or after they have a concept and say “How about this?” “This” usually tends to fit into a broader theme of the game, or into another PC’s background. It tends to work well.

One character’s background is being explored inadvertently in the first “chapter” of the game, and two others can have theirs done almost simultaneously in another chapter. A new player is actually the disillusioned apprentice (Wizard) of a main villain, so the villain will have an appearance (and thus bring the apprentice around to face him again). One of my players just doesn’t care, though, so I’ve helped her create goals around her character’s race and class: Dragonborn – find a way to bring the fallen empire back and, Paladin – find the Fist of Bahamut. Has nothing to do with personality, but since the player isn’t too interested, pushing for that would just make her reticent.

@Cole: That sounds great! It’s a lot of fun to break a stereotype by using one as a main figure. It keeps the players guessing and wondering what else may be different. Should we just smash this werewolf because we assume he’s evil or is he merely a victim? Maybe marauding goblins are only doing so because a dragon drove them out of the hills where they were perfectly happy to leave the local settlements alone. Etc.

Your examples, keep it simple, keep it coherent, and explore backgrounds are great goals. It sounds like your game should let the PCs make their choices freely and anticipate what’ll happen pretty well. That’s a style of play I enjoy.

Cole: That sounds like a great example of collaboration; together you came up with a good vampire in interesting detail. It is rewarding when the players take an interest in your NPCs like they are people, not quest giving props.