- Editor's note

Most of the campaigns in which I have been involved had an "adventure" style opening. This means that the story line had a definite beginning, middle and end. In contrast, most campaigns shift styles somewhat after the beginning, and become more "character-oriented", which means that the events in the campaign are determined by the whims of the various participants (PC or NPC).
Many campaigns fail when the style of the game "shifts" from the first to the latter. The players become disoriented, unaware that they have to take the initiative and act. They fail to notice important clues and plot elements. As a result, the campaign crumbles.
For the campaign to successfully cross over from the first, style to the latter, several things must occur:
Firstly, the players must be aware that they are supposed to take the wheel. Otherwise they will not bother noticing the clues and plot line, thinking that you are still there to steer them to the direction you desire.
Secondly, you must make certain that your clues, characters, plot elements, et cetera are presented in a lively and "attention drawing" way. You can never be sure that they players will notice a clue or two (there are exemptions by the way), so you should use narrative tools to put a spotlight on the clues.
Thirdly, you must run the world in a manner that can accommodate the actions of the PCs. This requires of you a game that is based on improvisation, rather than planning. To put the initiative into the hands of your players is to invite havoc into your world, and a world that is not flexible enough will not endure.


The difference between adventure and campaign:
-------------------------------------------------

There is a core difference between running short or introductory adventures, and between running a fully-fledged campaign. For once, those adventures are episodic by nature, while campaigns are usually lacking in that simple order of "beginning, middle, end". Another key difference, which is even more important, is that campaigns are infinitely more dependant on the actions of the individual characters, while that behavior is less predictable due to character development through time and events.
It is important to note that while adventures are primarily the work of the storyteller, with the players as contributing listeners, campaigns resemble more a collaborative work of art than the interactive creation of the single mind. Which is not to say that the storyteller has any less work - on the contrary.
This said, it can be now said that for campaigns to run well, the players must embrace not only their ability to influence the plot, but their obligation to do this. Which means they have to pay attention to the details.
This also means that you, and as storyteller, are going to have to think differently. Instead of all those slight and very cute but hardly noticeable foreshadows, you need to put clues out there that are obvious to the characters. The name of the game is communication, and to make sure the players know what you mean, you must conform to the "0 brains assumption" (never assume your players are capable of rational thought or any degree of observation) in at least part of the game. In the rest, you have to put some emphasis on the clues so the players will recognize them as clues.


The players must recognize their share in the plot.
----------------------------------------------------

Which brings me to another point. Both you and the players have to understand each other about the type of game you are playing. If they are on "hack and slash" mode, and you are on "mystery" mode, than it's much more probable that they will see their shady ally as just another foe-to-be.
This is even more important in the light of what was said above about influencing the plot. The players have to realize that they are expected to put some thought into the game, otherwise it's not going to work.
When the characters don't realize they need to take the plot into their own hands, they care less if they notice clues and the story. This alone will lead to them missing the story. In my last game, the players simply forgot where they were in terms of clues they already had.
This is exactly the point where my last campaigns went to the trash- can. This crossover point, halfway from the introductory, "Storyteller in the lead" adventure, halfway to the "characters fully involved" type of game, is problematic. That because at this point, the characters are expected to start thinking for themselves, but the players may not realize it yet (and it's not like you can just go to them and tell them "ok, from now on I expect you to switch your minds on).


GM's task: clues
-----------------

As for you, you can't really expect them to hold it together when all you give them are clues I would not pick up with an electron microscope.
Players cannot be assumed to have any capability of rational thought and/or observation of any kind (I apologize to all you players in advance) in a game context (to the exclusion of tactical situations). Therefore, clues have to be obvious in both essence and presentation. In short, they have to almost say, "I am a clue".
Clues, by their very nature, are not very obvious. It is your job to use presentation to make them obvious. This is where narrative tools kick in, doing the bulk of your job without causing damage to your world and plot.
For instance, you can use emphasis by repetition to make sure your characters pick up a clue. This is actually very simple. Just make sure you say or do something a lot of times. If they didn't catch it the first time maybe they'll catch it the hundredth.
Another important tool is to emphasize the clue by putting it in the center of a scene dedicated to it. The characters are likelier to notice a medallion if they spend half an hour looking for it, than if it is simply given to them by mister Doe.
A different way to center a scene around an object is to "lead" the player's attention towards that object by describing the surrounding in such a way that the closer you get to the object, the more detailed the description gets. This is usually climaxed with a highly descriptive object description (because they won't miss the object if you spend 5 minutes just telling them how it looks like). This can sometimes be omitted to add to the flow of the game when the players are "pushed" into taking action and asking you for the details of the item.
A third trick to make them notice a clue is to simply and directly jerk their memory with the old fashioned "this reminds you of something". Crude, but effective.
The opposite can be done of course to create interest, suspense and surprise. I highly encourage it, but this article is not about this.


A living, breathing world
---------------------------

The world in which the characters operate must be a living, breathing one. If the characters do something, that something should have effects. When you expect the players to effect the plot, you must give them the ability to do so.
Characters, whose feet the player characters stomp, will put up a fair (or unfair) fight. Characters might owe the player characters favors, and will or will not pay them. In time, the player characters will know more and more people.
The most important example is the villain who retaliates. When they lose to a long-term villain, have their enemies come after them.
You must also notice that the status of PCs is something that changes very rapidly. Some people, who yesterday would not give the crazy PC bunch a second thought, might now need to pay homage or tribute. This is in fact a good way to show PC influence on the world.
If you don't do that, and instead stick to the old, pre-campaign "script", than the world will start to crumble when the player characters do something unexpected. I'm not saying that you'll be error free from now on, but running things dynamically does solve a problem or two.


Conclusions
------------

If you had implemented the three steps above, you probably managed to cross over successfully to running a character-oriented game.

-Amir Peleg aka Strider

Email: