What would YOU want to see?

One thing I expect from every game is a challenge, whether explicit or implicit. If a game doesn't have that, I lose interest.

I used to be solely a fan of roleplaying and unique games. On DnDO, a majority of the games were pretty much the DM playing with himself, all the players did was roll the dice. That's not a thing unique to DnDO though, the last game I played before summer was like that unfortunately. Being able to hold a conversation was much more important, and being able to stretch the game to its limits are how I judged the game.

Nowadays though, I put a little more emphasis on the strategy of the game and the 'cool' factor. I prefer games which adhere to the standard rules more, as games where the DM has like 50 billion house rules for combat and whatnot can feel foreign and rationalize any 'cool' occurrences as just 'DM being nice'. Game's gotta get you to think, and let you actually play instead of just watch.

Lots of good things said there, for instance Acid just mentioned challenge which reminded me of an article I read recently on coup de gracing player characters. Indeed it should be reserved for the most relevant situations, but the loss of one of the party definitely sends sparks in the player's minds. I think in all the campaigns I've been a player in, one of the main things I'd like is to die more, or once...

I've made three campaigns in the past:
My first, I realized I hadn't planned well enough for the players to enjoy, it was empty on a basic level.
The second, I realized I'd planned too much for individual sessions, but lacked a general structure.
And my third I am currently working on, the aim is to balance well thought out preparation with improvisation that allows me, as DM, to keep the campaign individual to each player, and of course I don't mean fable unique, I mean unique in the way only a pen and paper game can be.

Something else I'm trying is viewing the party both as a a team, and as individuals. That might seem very basic to a lot of DMs, but until recently it never occurred to me that I wasn't treating them as such. So once again, I'm trying to make the campaign unique to the players.

I guess I feel the appeal of a pen and paper game such as D&D is that you're not playing through somebody else's character, so it can only be a good thing to capitalize on this and make the campaign as unique to each player as possible, that's what I'd like to see.

Of course, there's a huge amount of things that go into a good campaign or campaign world. I've just picked out one or two things I particularly like and have only really noticed in recent years .

I agree with you acid, I have played many games that were like that. I truly love to roleplay in the total sense of the word. That is one reason I loved playing EoD with Phee, she is really into letting players lead the story. Choices and challenges are an essential part, for me, of really getting into a campaign.

Another thing is adding the odd little situations to a campaign to keep things fresh. Such as Tux's baby penguins in Tier (if anyone remembers). My character was an elven rogue (my usual) who turned into a penguin babysitter. lol Its little odd things like that keeps the game from getting monotonous and dull.

Good to hear some of the same things I feel.

I know when I play I usually like mixing a degree of humor and drama into the stories. Some campaigns can get so mellowdramatic in a sense... In all honesty everytime i've played a game where people were enjoying themselves humor was always a better aspect into the game rather than trying to be deathly serious.
I know at one point I had the group moving through a room with paintings on the floor to figure out the correct path, they were rather afraid to find out what was going to shoot out of the holes in the wall.

Ended up being fortune cookie launchers. >.>

Another aspects of games i don't see very much... DM's are too scared to try and kill the players. Granted there should be a balance between something they can't survive... and something thats going to make them be like "oh shit oh shit" it makes them think and improvise to survive.

Two things:

I don't like killing players. Why? I have a story to tell. I try to integrate characters into the plot, into the story, and if I just randomly hack one, well, it just causes more frustration for me.

That having been said, if you're just being stupid (ie, a wizard CHARGING a horde of opponents armed with no spells left and a nonmagical staff...), well, it's time for you to die. If the numbers say 'you die' because of a few bad rolls (like a low level character getting critted on by a lowly orc with a greataxe rolling near max damage [if you're wondering, max damage would be 39!]), guess what? I'll fudge the roll.

The other thing is, if you plan on running this game online, via chat or what not, here's more a suggestion than a 'request': Action. Use LOTS of action. Roleplaying is all well and good, but only a fraction of your group will honestly give a damn in each scene. One or two characters will 'steal the spotlight', and the others will feel overshadowed and not participate. Thus, they will get bored, and not pay attention to the game. Then, afterwards, they'll wonder what the hell is going on, and let me tell you how frustrating that is.

Everyone can take part in action scenes, thus everyone has fun. When everyone has fun, everyone wants to keep coming back for more, thus successful game. Am I saying remove heavy roleplaying parts from your game? Hell no. Just spread the roleplaying out between some good, healthy action scenes.

It's a simple recipe for online PnP gaming success.

Longevity. Period.

i was going to say that saber was partially incorrect about one or two of the players stealing the show in a roleplaying based game..... but he's right, as ashamed as i am to admit it.

Wanted to bump this thread because it contains an interesting discussion with some great points.  Plus the thread's not that old, it's not like I'm pulling a Solace or something.
 
I also have a question of my own to pose.  In a fantasy setting, do people here prefer more of a plot-driven game or a more player/character-driven one? I ask this for a couple of reasons.  I've seen great campaigns result from both approaches (I'd say CotV was very plot-driven; and while it's a little hazy in my memory, I recall Trier being more character-driven).
 
I think what I'd maybe like to see (or run) is a campaign that starts out plot-driven but gradually becomes more character-driven, with the DM making an effort to "shine the spotlight" on different characters to avoid the effect that Saber brought up and that Clay once exemplified.  Though to be fair, the reason Trier became centered on him is that he showed up for like every session and the rest of us were more spotty in attendance.
 
Which brings me to my next point: Arch made the best post in the thread.  Talking about this is all well and good but the biggest problem with every campaign ever run on OPnPW is that they've died.  That's why I think it's important for a campaign to start out plot-driven, preferably with lots of action early on (as a DM I always try to have combat in the first session).  Making the players enthusiastic about the game early on is key.
 
I might be wrong but I think I've done this in my campaigns.  The first two or three sessions have been good (points to sig), but then I get to a point where I haven't planned any more and it starts to break down, and I'm far too self-conscious about these things, so I end up losing interest and the campaign dies.  I would have started another campaign long before now, but I'm still trying to figure out how to avoid this and I'm afraid my next one will die (which no doubt makes me sound like a pussy).
 
I kinda lost structure somewhere in there, but yeah, just trying to get some discussion going.
 
Oh yeah, if people haven't seen it, Brad's campaign tracker is cool: http://www.opnpw.com/campaigns
If you're running (cough Saber, Acido) a campaign, put that shit up.  Or even if you ran one in the past.  RoS is up there, so you know there's no minimum number of sessions required or anything. (insert smiley here)

I definitely agree that this post is worth bumping.  I would like to see feedback from the players to the DM.  Too often the DM just goes with the flow of his campaign and the players may not be enjoying the direction.  For example, lots of subterfuge and information gathering in a group full of bloodthirsty barbarians.  Not to say that you should always cater to the whims of the players, but know the strengths and weaknesses of your PC's.  If you know theres no way for them to escape or get Plot Information A..well you get the idea.
I also see too many DM's that have only one 'idea' on how things will develop, and if the group decides to do something else or not pick up on your hook then you are pretty screwed.  DM's need to be flexible, though players need to be understanding.  You know I think I got off the topic, and have started rambling.
I would like to see the DM incorporate character's backstories, or let them do a little wandering to develop.  Players making the DM's life easier if they can is a big plus. I personally am good at the storytelling part, but a bit murky on all the myriad rules of the game.
Finally I agree with Arch, Longevity!  Scheduling on an online client is always a pain in the ass with shifting schedules, different time zones...etc.  I have the Valley Untouched game I do want to run right now, but scheduling slots are limited to like Fri/Sat for me, and that always makes it hard to run a successful game. 
Eh guess I didnt really touch on the subject but I don't want to delete the wall of text.  Enjoy!
 
 

I think Striker was on to something about beginning with plot-driven and migrating to a character-driven game. In my games, I try to have a story to tell. However, as that story progresses, I want to see what stories my characters can tell. My last IRL game was a great example of this.
 
One of my characters was fairly mundane, so the player and I decided to spice things up a bit; we decided that he was reincarnated. His previous life was that of a wholly evil warlord, and was thus doomed to eternity in the abyss, but a succubus intervened. She offered him a 'second chance', basically to try again. She offered him a contract that, if he performed enough good in his second life to essentially undo his previous life's wrongs, his soul would be free to travel to some celestial plane. Otherwise, he would be her eternal slave to torment at her leisure (in this game, the more servants/worshippers a particular extraplanar creature had, the more powerful it became; the catch, they had to be 'willing' [contractual agreements such as these also counted].)
 
Feeling he had nothing to lose, and potentially everything to gain, he went for it. As devils are want to do, the succubus manipulated the deal, and returned him to a new life, new body... Just without any memory of the previous life or his afterlife deal. Then, the succubus guided his life back to the course of evil, and he ended up the leader of a particularily cruel banditry ring.
 
Eventually, a band of heroes broke up the ring, and he barely escaped with his life. He turned to merc work, and that's where the campaign began. He slowly started to realize his past life, and became quite interested in helping others and thus freeing himself from this contract. I was able to slowly stop telling the group what to do and where to go; he (and the rest of the party for their own various reasons) decided where to go and what to do next. The turn-around was quite enjoyable for everyone involved. They didn't feel railroaded into anything, and felt as though they were now controlling the campaign's direction.
 
Some games are suited towards one or the other, however. D&D, imo, is kinda middle road. You'll want a healthy share of plot- and character-driven play. In that WWII game I was/am running, it's kind of a hard stretch to do much character-driven play; sure, it'll happen, but not to the extent of a typical, good D&D game. On the other hand, Shadowrun is typically much more character-driven gameplay. Before a run, the characters use their resources to gain any information possible about the run. During the run, things more often than not go awry, and they need to determine what they'll do next. After a run, they typically have a number of loose ends they could follow up on. That, and the majority of runs are not tied to one another, so the major driving force has to be characters and their interactions.

My best game sessions was probably one I ran in real life, where the PCs were trekking across a vast open plains on the verge of death. They were constantly scrounigng for resources and staving off death. It was the sense of pure open-ness a D&D or P&P game should have, with a directed linearness.

So I think what a majority of players want to see is the ability to enact something they can't in a normal day, or normal course of life.

I can lay waste convincingly to an area in Battlefield Bad Company, and I can power game in Diablo II (et al), what I can do is both of those, while building a trade empire, or whatever.

As a DM i've tried to create purely "open" games, and it just doesn't work, unless you have a player who'se a surrogate DM. One who directs the party and has wants and aspirations of his own.

So what would I want to see?

I would love to see a business centric D&D game. Sounds odd? Well, basic premise.

PCs start as shop hands, and calamnity befalls the owner and <insert quest> is required. Huzzah success and all that, and it moves into more of an empire mode. Branch out with help of the orginal storyline and start you own widget factory, inn, whatever.

Plenty of room for DM guided storyline, with almost deliniated (sp) time for "open" play.

Much like saber said earlier i like to run plot driven games. For more reasons then not i have a story to tell and i find that the funnest part about dming. Telling the story and watching how the players react/think/hack slack/ panic and backstab each other throughout the course i find basically utter delight. I've tried open ended games before and the problem i usually run into is the motivation of my players isn't enough or exsistent at all. ie whatever free time is usually given to the pc's is spent at the most shopping. So in the end i try to do the gentle touch approch. I mean that the game in reality is very much on a rail, but the players are none the wiser. The pc's are usually guided through my story via small nuggets or breadcrumbs of direction which makes them feel oh so smart that they figured it out. And in the end the "illusion of freedom" approach in the game usually ends with the most excitment and yearn to keep playing from my friends. 

I'm like Striker.. when I DM, I probably don't plan far enough in advance (although, I did do some pretty good work on the last game I ran, which I think had Kinger, Saber and Huron(?) but it just died out. I'm not sure if my players lost interest, or if I did, or what happened to that one. I also have a really hard time catering to half a dozen players, who all want different stories (a good DM still requires good players). I also hate the idea of putting tens of hours into a game and it dissolving after 2 sessions. This is why I've basically become a 'player-only' kind of character. It's also a 'big wall' to climb when you think about how great some of the other DMs are on here and how well you (won't) compare. Pretty daunting.
 
I think I'd be more inclined to run a game, if it was in person, because it's a whole lot harder to blow off a game in person than it is online.
 
I feel that the key to keeping players in the game is to get their character involved. They need to have a reason to keep adventuring - a sense of purpose. Mission style games are fun, for awhile, but what's the characters motivation? Tie in a back story, and it suddenly becomes a much bigger mission (especially if the small missions lead to clues about the characters real motivation)..

So how does one get the characters involved? Do you build the characters with the PCs? Do you take their input? How do you find that you're able to pull them in?

Yeah, I think the DM has to be involved with the character building process, even if only for the background.. That way the character can come up with something they're happy with and DM can tie it in to their world history or game plot.