Quote from: Bren;830247Sometimes I don't make sure there are any ways to go about it. This totally avoids me having a preconceived notion of what the solution ought to be. One of my co-GMs has a phrase for when she did this.

"At this point, my notes just say, 'Play out.'"

thats good advice.

Quote from: tuypo1;830251thats good advice.

.
It presupposes you have confidence that the problem is solvable and that your players will be able to come up with a solution.

It also works best if the players trust that the GM is not looking to screw them or their characters nor to pixel bitch a solution. But the phrase "Play out." was also something the GM used to signal to the players that "Hey, I'm not looking for one particular solution here. Feel free to figure out something you think will work and if it isn't too ludicrous there's a good chance it might work." The phrase "Play out" was shorthand for that longer statement.

Quote from: The Butcher;830142I did this once with my Day After Ragnarok campaign. Players were having fun but I felt adventures had become formulaic. There was little opportunity to develop the world in any detail because of the globe-trotting span of most sessions, resulting in PCs interacting only for a little while with places all over the Earth, and as a result it didn't feel very immersive.

Read the accounts of the life of a Navy SEAL Team. For some job/situations it appears just like that. However the reality is that Navy SEAL Team inhabit our planet with all of its diversity. And that while a individual member of a SEAL team is focused enough that he typically misses that detail because of his mission, the detail is still there.

On the flip side what details of say Bangkok versus the Hindu Kush are important enough to be noticed by a Navy SEAL team? Versuses a bunch of treasure seekers looking to loot archaeological sites, or a  magnate on the rise and his team seeking to expand his industrial empire.

The world is always there in all its diversity and richness, but what important to a particular group of characters varies depending on their circumstances.

I been worldbuilding the Majestic Wilderlands for along time, 30 years. So I have a lot of details, but only a small part ever comes up for any particular campaign. In my experience, players only get a complete picture of my setting after playing different characters through different campaigns.

Which is OK because for the current campaign I strive to give everything they need to make meaningful decisions about their characters along with anything else they expressed interest in.

I design and run a lot of military games. Military games are mission based by necessity. We have had fantastic military campaigns, and here are the reasons:

1: Anything outside the mission is completely open. In one WWI aviators game, the supply officer traded the commander's piano for something desperately needed. The mechanics on their own decided to get the Commander a piano - he loved to play at night in the rec hall for the men - and went into a bombed out and evacuated French town to search out pianos in the bordellos. They had a fantastic adventure there, all on their own initiative. So, falling in love, going drinking, leave in the big city, whatever they have free time for is open for gaming.

2: Yes, you have to obey your superiors, but the higher in the chain of command you go, the more open to interpretation your orders are. If your character is the commander, your orders will be "Take and hold hill 553" or "Suppress piracy in the Caribbean" or "Protect the bombers" or "Patrol your assigned area". *how* you do that is entirely up to you and the resources you have on hand.

3: Make the rewards reinforce the structure. The reward for accomplishing your goals should always be bigger goals and more responsibility. That means advancement in rank. The ones in command aren't the best fighters. They are the ones who keep achieving their goals. I build reward mechanics into my games, but you can do it ad hoc if you want.

I have found the group structure and freedom it promotes so important that now all of my games have a company or association structure to work from.

Quote from: tuypo1;830186i have a theory that such a campaign would be effective at avoiding the problems normaly encountered with an evil campaign, I have yet to test that theory though

I was replaying SWTOR as a sith, and I found a lot of interesting ideas about how to portray an evil protagonist without it just being rape, murder, loot. But that's kinda off topic I think, as I'd want to go into motivations and concequences that aren't necessarily tied into mission structured adventures.
But that you have a Master who sends you on missions and stuff is. The master has goals they want to accomplish and obstacles that need to be overcome, and as an agent, you really don't have time to piss around and be "petty evil".

Quote from: flyingmice;830276I design and run a lot of military games. Military games are mission based by necessity. We have had fantastic military campaigns, and here are the reasons:

1: Anything outside the mission is completely open. In one WWI aviators game, the supply officer traded the commander's piano for something desperately needed. The mechanics on their own decided to get the Commander a piano - he loved to play at night in the rec hall for the men - and went into a bombed out and evacuated French town to search out pianos in the bordellos. They had a fantastic adventure there, all on their own initiative. So, falling in love, going drinking, leave in the big city, whatever they have free time for is open for gaming.

2: Yes, you have to obey your superiors, but the higher in the chain of command you go, the more open to interpretation your orders are. If your character is the commander, your orders will be "Take and hold hill 553" or "Suppress piracy in the Caribbean" or "Protect the bombers" or "Patrol your assigned area". *how* you do that is entirely up to you and the resources you have on hand.

3: Make the rewards reinforce the structure. The reward for accomplishing your goals should always be bigger goals and more responsibility. That means advancement in rank. The ones in command aren't the best fighters. They are the ones who keep achieving their goals. I build reward mechanics into my games, but you can do it ad hoc if you want.

I have found the group structure and freedom it promotes so important that now all of my games have a company or association structure to work from.

Good post, very good advice to bear in mind for mission-based campaigns. This thread has had me hankering to run the Heavy Gear campaign that's been at the back of my mind for ages.

Quote from: flyingmice;830276I design and run a lot of military games. Military games are mission based by necessity. We have had fantastic military campaigns, and here are the reasons:

1: Anything outside the mission is completely open. In one WWI aviators game, the supply officer traded the commander's piano for something desperately needed. The mechanics on their own decided to get the Commander a piano - he loved to play at night in the rec hall for the men - and went into a bombed out and evacuated French town to search out pianos in the bordellos. They had a fantastic adventure there, all on their own initiative. So, falling in love, going drinking, leave in the big city, whatever they have free time for is open for gaming.

2: Yes, you have to obey your superiors, but the higher in the chain of command you go, the more open to interpretation your orders are. If your character is the commander, your orders will be "Take and hold hill 553" or "Suppress piracy in the Caribbean" or "Protect the bombers" or "Patrol your assigned area". *how* you do that is entirely up to you and the resources you have on hand.

3: Make the rewards reinforce the structure. The reward for accomplishing your goals should always be bigger goals and more responsibility. That means advancement in rank. The ones in command aren't the best fighters. They are the ones who keep achieving their goals. I build reward mechanics into my games, but you can do it ad hoc if you want.

I have found the group structure and freedom it promotes so important that now all of my games have a company or association structure to work from.

Do you appoint of the players as a leader of the group? Or one of the characters? Or is it all equals?

There are many games where mission-type campaigns would be the norm. The James Bond RPG assumes your agent works for an agency and you can't exactly turn down an assignment, although you might eff it up. FGU's Merc assumes you signed up and take orders for pay.  Palladium's Recon assumes you enlisted or were drafted.

There's a lot of leeway in how one achieves the completion of the mission, but the fact that you are going on the mission is a given. Doesn't make it a railroad or even linear.  Just makes it I GOT THIS JOB TO DO AND I'M GONNA GIT IT DONE! Sometimes these types of games are good for introducing newcomers to RPGs as the premise is as easy to understand as any board game like Clue where it's assumes you're going to try to solve who murdered Mr. Boddy rather than just wander around the mansion and grounds.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830353Do you appoint of the players as a leader of the group? Or one of the characters? Or is it all equals?

I usually - though not always - start them as equals, under an NPC. The advancement sub-system eventually has one of them distance themself from the others, and becoming their superior.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830353Do you appoint of the players as a leader of the group? Or one of the characters? Or is it all equals?

For Star Wars they started more or less as equals with an NPC commander. Eventually one PC got promoted so he was in charge of a starfighter squadron with other PCs and NPCs as the rest of the pilots.

For Star Trek one player always played the captain, another the first officer, etc.

One thing we've done several times in Star Trek is to make a brand new player the captain of the starship. It prevents the new person from sitting back and observing by immediately putting them in the midst of play. And most people are familiar with Star Trek so they have already have a sort of mental model of what a captain might do and how an adventure might go.

Quote from: Bren;830247Sometimes I don't make sure there are any ways to go about it. This totally avoids me having a preconceived notion of what the solution ought to be. One of my co-GMs has a phrase for when she did this.

"At this point, my notes just say, 'Play out.'"

That is what I meant.

Dont focus things to the point that there is only one path through.

I'm currently running a mission-based campaign.

I encourage players to explore the setting, create their own agendas, and pursue them on their own, or with other PCs and NPCs they trust. This often leads to extra complications during their missions, and also keeps things interesting during the down time between missions.

Also, it's a science fiction campaign involving relatively slow FTL travel -- transit between star systems can take weeks. So there's also "down time" during the FTL phases of some missions, and at these times it's good for the PCs to have their own projects to pursue. I'm continually impressed with their ideas.

Some good stuff in this thread. Can't quote everyone but I found Brendan, Rob and Clash's responses particularly enlightening. You may have persuaded me to reactivate the DAR campaign... or maybe try an Eclipse Phase one.

Glad to be of service, Butcher!

-clash

This seems like a timely review for this thread.