I've been thinking a lot about campaign goals. Or rather what my players think or do about them. There are two ways I go about establishing a campaign goal.

The first as in my current OtE campaign is a specific goal (and something decided before play) - make sure elections for a proxy candidate goes on without a problem - The second creation method evolves naturally during the course of the campaign, with the players honing in on an objective and making it the goal of the campaign.

But here's the thing. More and more my players seem to be interested in individual goals rather than collective ones. An extreme - only because it serves to highlight the situation - example of this would be my d20 Modern campaign, where the individual goals of the players took centerstage much to the 'benefit" of a sinister org they were at war with.

Now I don't really have a problem with this. I mean the way how I see it, if the players care about the goals of their characters - and I don't mean this in a selfish, fuck every other player kind of way -then I'm doing my job as a GM or at least the part where I'm supposed to bring the setting alive.

I do wonder though that keeping in mind that this (gaming) is a social activity and that collective goals acts as a convenient focus for the players, how many other GMs or players find themselves in this situation...where collective goals become secondary and the main goals of the campaign are individual ones?

As a GM how do you handle this situation? As a player how do you subsume your individual character goal with those of the group? I have a feeling that the answer from both perspectives are linked.

Regards,
David R

The best and easiest way to address it is in character creation.  Make the campaign goals (if there are any) clear and make certain that individual character goals compliment one another, if possible.

In an ongoing game where this happens I try to work them all in as best I can.  If some goal is clearly going to interfere with the goals of the other players we'll talk about it.  "Hey, Bill's character's goal is kinda at odds with Sarah and Jane's characters.  What can we do about that?"  I emphasize that the game is about everyone having fun and that, if necessary, we'll change goals (or even characters) to make sure everyone is having fun.

If you can link the character's goals together in some way--thematically, for instance--it all comes together more easily. That would come either in chargen or before.

I'm at a stage where I'm comfortable with divergent goals or even opposed goals. I think the major skill is having good timing in cutting to another scene. But the players need to be interested in each other's characters for it to work.

I'm not sure that I've ever really done anything. I just kind of go with the flow. Thinking about it, one thing you could do was dealing with the secondard goals more narratively. Instead of acting out what happens, start describing it.

Seanchai

I have a long-running Arcana Evolved campaign which ran into this problem.  One of the characters ran off in his own direction while the rest headed off in a different one.

I handled it the best way I knew how - split the party.

I have all the same players, mind you.  However, the five players who went their own way all made new characters for the one character's mini-campaign, and the one player made a new character for the other mini-campaign.

It's taken a while to get this finished up, but I feel that my campaign was much richer for it.

Now, some of the players will be switching out their old characters with the new (and vice-versa) once we get everyone back together.

-O

I may be off base, but this hints at what I call Party Syndrome or why are the characters together in the first place?  They're going to be adventuring together what is the common individual goal, even if their motivations are different, that keeps the group together.  Always ask that first to the players.  

The easiest way, is that they are a group that always stays together.  "All for one and one for all."  If one character feels that they need to accomplish something the entire party assists them.  You can also design the setting around this.  As an example, they're a military unit doing missions.  

The next two options are GM time intensive.  The first is to run solo adventures for characters to accomplish their individual goals after they come up outside of your normal group gatherings.  The second is to run solo adventures to build up to the campaign goal.  The group only gets together when relevant parts of the campaign goal are discovered within their solo adventures.  All of the characters have different information, contacts, and experiences with this option.

My last option is one I use for irregular attendance and/or multiple GMs.  A pool of characters is made and short term goals are offered to the group (like a one shot).  The character pool is the party.  The players select from their pool the character they feel will accomplish that goal the best.  So again the characters gain different information, contacts, and experiences.  If a character wants to satiate an individual goal, I'd design an adventure around that and let him discuss with the other players which of their characters from their pool will help them.  

I don't know how much that helps, just throwing my ideas of a subject I've thought a lot about.

Quote from: GunslingerI may be off base, but this hints at what I call Party Syndrome or why are the characters together in the first place?  

I like this, Party Syndrome. My group calls it "Not Seeing The Dungeon" effect . I guess what I'm getting at is that short term campaigns and by this I mean campaigns with agreed upon goals like my OtE game there really isn't an issue with collective goals. But in long term ones, where after a while the setting seeps into the players, individual goals begin to take a more important role.

Actually when this happens and when we talk about it post game, I say what Seanchai does, I tell them to go with the flow. Linking individual goals thematically as droog suggests happens in my case during the course of the campaign.

Artificially constructed party goals as opposed to those that happen during the course of the campaign seem to be a dying feature, at least in my games. I like your suggestions though, but could you give me examples of the way how you have used them.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RArtificially constructed party goals as opposed to those that happen during the course of the campaign seem to be a dying feature, at least in my games. I like your suggestions though, but could you give me examples of the way how you have used them.

I'll try but to be honest, I'm more of a player who moonlights as a GM.  Most of these ideas came about from how to make games better from the player perspective.

The artificially constructed party goal is something that is agreed upon by the GM and players before the game and isn't as focused as you may think.  I tend to think of it as something to engage the players into action and as a guideline for character creation.  As examples: adventuring for money, a military unit doing missions, protecting society from evil, exploring for artifacts.  It'll be the individual goals and motivations that provide the focus.  

Quote"All for one and one for all."

What I use for the static, regular meeting group.  As an example, in a Robotech RPG, I'd make the players all be veritech or all be destroid pilots.  A simple focus that allows the players to operate together believably.  What engages them to perform?  Missions and orders.  It'll be up to the players how they follow them and focus the campaign.  

QuoteThe first is to run solo adventures for characters to accomplish their individual goals after they come up outside of your normal group gatherings.

This is actually just allowing the player to have the freedom of splitting up the party while still honoring the artificially constructed party goal.  This usually happens at higher levels when the characters are more competent and they feel their individual actions carry more weight within the campaign than the collective goals of the party.  This works well when the social gathering of the players happens outside of playing.  Meaning you're meeting with these people whether you're playing or not.  Example, any version of D&D.  

QuoteThe second is to run solo adventures to build up to the campaign goal.

This is a prototype idea that originated from two of us playing and then mixing that character with others into the campaign structure.  I don't mean we've never done this, just not to the level I'm imagining.  You run solo adventures for each character and bring the party together.  By the time the party comes together, each character is a known entity within the setting with their own contacts and reputation.  The themes of the solo adventures brings the party together for a particular purpose and information for that purpose is scattered throughout the solo adventures.  I'd do this for a superhero campaign.  Give each player their Metropolis, Gotham, or Hell's Kitchen and fine tune the solo adventures to their abilities.  I don't want Batman thinking he's not bringing something to the Justice League.  

QuoteMy last option is one I use for irregular attendance and/or multiple GMs.

The character pool basically eliminates the idea of a static party.  The pool is the party.  Everyone can GM without having to allow someone to play their characters.  Anybody can run for somebody else with other characters from the pool.  It's a mix of the above ideas but more flexible because it does not rely on a static GM.  I've developed settings for Marvel and the RC with this concept in mind.  Simpler systems are easier for everyone to GM.  As an example, think of the Justice League Unlimited cartoon.  They're a huge group but the episodes usually focus on a couple of characters.

Here's how this kind of thing works in my Rifts game:

Some PCs have personal goals, some do not (it's at the whim of the player, though I try to get them to think about what their goals are).

The collective group has its own goals, part of which is helping each other achieving their personal goals.

Sometimes the personal goals go against each other's goals, or against the group goals.  That's when things really get fun.

As GM, I try and wrap the storylines together when it makes sense, create new hooks for goals (personal and group), and run people seperately when they split up to do stuff.

Use- and ideaful thread.
Bump!

I´ll be lurking.

Gunslinger & jgants thanks, I found both your post very interesting. A question for both of you while I digest all that has been written

Do you find that your players create personal goals that they know can be easily intergrated into the campaign or do they (personal goals) have a more organic random creation?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDo you find that your players create personal goals that they know can be easily intergrated into the campaign or do they (personal goals) have a more organic random creation?

It depends on the breadth of their characters.  If the game setup is that the characters are just starting the exciting period of their life (1st level, 1st career path, etc...) most players don't invest much into their background and goals.  They want to develop that during play.  GM has to be perceptive to know what conflicts are engaging the player during play.  I cheat.  I look at their character sheets and use their abilities to challenge them as a rough starting point.  I figure, they may not know where their character is going but their character sheet shows what they envision their character doing.  Why else would they select food tasting as a skill?  Hopefully, they'll jump at something and direct the focus of the campaign more for me.  ::crosses fingers::

If the character is more advanced (higher level, lifepath generated, etc...), I find that most players will generate more specific individual goals for their character.  If they do, incorporate them.  If they don't do this, see the first option.