@Tez said in Game Stagnancy and Activity:
- Give your players the ability to affect the world. Endorse it. Facilitate it.
- Have a tight theme, so that whatever your players want to do will fit in to your vision.
What do you think is the best way to achieve 1 and 2? They seem gently contradictory.
@DownWithOPP summarizes @faraday's method, and I think it's pretty solid.
Start with 2. On a World of Darkness Vampire game, a tight theme could be "political machine" or "Strix infestation." The players will then know generally what sort of plots staff will run or would like to see. On a Mass Effect game, the players could be on Omega during the Cerberus takeover. On a D&D game, the game could be set around protecting a particular realm from invaders from another kingdom. This differs from the sandbox approach of "this is the Grid, play in it, and make your own drama."
Then, move to 1. Like BSG:U, you could have modules/plots that mesh with how staff is playing through the metaplot. On the Mass Effect game I mentioned, staff could run a general campaign of "Cerberus is in the lower levels taking over the power plants," and encourage players to play out skirmishes in Omega's underbelly and mines. Particular events like protecting a plant against invasion could be run by staff or players.
If 1 is going well, the game will self-sustain.
In another thread, I discussed my views on risk, and here they are: "let the players decide if their characters die." This seems counter-intuitive to the idea of "risk," but it isn't so where there are set objectives to meet or satisfy. If the players lose those skirmishes, it could have an effect on the metaplot: if Cerberus takes the plants or the Cylons crush a scouting patrol, that could negatively effect the campaign, just as success in both encounters may improve the players' situation. And advertise those successes and failures equally, to let the players know that this ain't no cakewalk.