This is a good point, and I agree. I covered some of this ground in Start Small, which is good advice for exactly the reasons that you mentioned.

My experience is that pinning a new campaign down before it starts rarely works. Either the players don’t like it, or it just doesn’t quite work out the way you planned, or some much better idea comes along. I’ve had really big, epic campaigns not survive their second session, and simple, loose, one-time adventures turn into an entire campaign. It’s hard to predict what works, so I just focus on a single adventure, and if it works, I can always turn it into a big campaign later on.

That said, I do have a couple of ideas for a big Traveller campaign and a big CoC campaign, but if I ever do get around to starting those campaigns, I’m gonna make damn sure I’m gonna focus on just the first adventure at first, and make that fun. Don’t plan too far ahead; high expectations are just an invitation to disappointment. IME, ofcourse.

Eventually I discovered Fantasy Hero really didn’t work well, and it took a long time to run battles. So we converted the characters to Cold Iron. That didn’t work out either (not hard core gamist players), so we converted the game to D&D.

I used to really like trying out new systems. I still would like to do so, but it’s hard to get enough players together to try things out (that worked best in college when we played Friday night, Saturday all day, and any other time we could get a few people together [there was almost always a couple gamers hanging out upstairs in the student union]).

Frank

I’ve never run into this approach before, Daneic, although I agree that it sounds like a mix of #1 and #2. The closest I’ve come is in our recent round of “What game are we going to play?” when there was some general interest in a WWII game, but not in any of the systems that tend to be attached to WWII games.

(mcv) Our approach is to just try several things and see what sticks.

I think this one would drive me nuts as a GM, because of the level of investment I like to have in what I’m running. It’s an interesting take on the process though — I’m glad it works for you.

Some other campaigns I tried didn’t make it. So generally, it starts out as #1 and then turns into #2 where it catches on with the group or not, although some suggestions were shot down because we have way too many campaigns running already.

I actually want to GM or play in a Traveller campaign, or perhaps do a bit of Call of Cthulhu, but my group doesn’t want to.

Depending on the group I play, the players sometimes throws the question back to me and I must choose the rule-set as well.

This sounds like a fun variation on #3, a bit more structured than the “throw darts” approach I mentioned after the list. It looks like you picked broadly similar games, which probably helped lead to a positive outcome — I’m assuming your group enjoys d20, and therefore would be up for most d20 games.

What kind of games are getting floated for the next roll?

Heh, I pretty much covered almost all the things you mentioned in that article. Started in ’81 as a teen, was DM because I had the books and the inclination. And I did get to play some in college, though even then I was mostly the DM. After the first 8 years or so, however, I had reached a point where I really was *far* better as a DM than I was as a player.

I have a couple of players that will probably never DM because they have never played for anyone but me (and recently the guy in our group I mentioned above). They started with me about the time I really hit my stride. And they are working on, hmm, 18 years with me now. They’d try too hard to DM as I do, not realizing how much I struggled at first, and never develop their own style.

To bring it back on topic, I think that’s why we really don’t have much trouble getting the #2 and #3 effects, even when we don’t overtly set up the campaign those ways. Heck, there’s usually a pretty solid second choice from the last time we decided, that may still look fun.

This sounds like a classic case of GM by Default — not necessarily a bad thing (I’ve certainly been there!), but I agree that your players would probably benefit by broadening their horizons a bit.

OTOH, they have always been willing to come up with all kinds of interesting and wild ideas in the context of characters (theirs, others, or even hypothetical). In fact, collectively, I’d say that my players exercise just about every DM skill, short of basic adventure prep. They just don’t think about it that way. So I can get a lot of good information from them about what they want to do as long as I’m careful how I ask.

Two or maybe three of my players aren’t as like this as the others. However, even they are reticent because of the overall tone of the group.

I don’t adjust foes or adventures because of imaginative guess work by the players–either correct or not. (I will adjust to make things more exciting.) I *do* note any imaginative guess work, keep a list, and try to work it into later adventures or even campaigns.

Any idea why they’re shy about this, CJ?

(Frank) There’s an angle between #0 (forming a totally new group) and #1: Choose the game you want to run. Simultaneously invite players from your old group and make a public invitation. In some sense, this may be the most functional way to select a new game (GM is totally invested, players are totally invested).

That’s a good way to put it, Frank. And there’s definitely some wiggle room in these 4 approaches — they’re intentionally broad.

(Rudolf) I actually think #3 is better that you present it.

I tried to be pretty even in my presentation, while staying accurate. Number 3 is one of my favorite approaches, and it has a lot of merit — it’s just not without downsides.

(Scott) Maybe that’s a fifth way: have GMs compete for the open slot. [It shares a lot with your Method 2– there’s just more than even a game to pick. Hurt feelings are very possible.

I’d lump that in with #2, although choosing a GM as well as a game definitely puts a spin on it.