Some more thoughts about my Role-Playing Game campaigns, or maybe musings that I've written about before. First off, the little signs that indicate that I'm running an interesting campaign. Sure, most of the players say they like the game, but they'd say that anyway. I don't take criticism well and they probably know it, so they wouldn't say bad things about my game if they had that opinion.

Anyway, little things. In the two campaigns I've run (I don't count various one-shot adventures for other campaigns or campaigns that didn't last more than a couple of weeks), no character has ever died. Nobody has ever made this observation to me, so even if they've noticed it they haven't deemed it a negative. It's unlikely characters will die in any campaign I run. Well, that may be overstating it. But I can say that the next campaign, which will be a superhero game, will also not have any character deaths. There's always a chance that a random shot or character stupidity gets someone killed, but I fudge the rolls even more nowadays than when I ran BattleTech so it is highly unlikely to happen.

Next observation is Donald. He who is notorious for getting bored with a character and starting another one at the drop of a hat. In BattleTech he did create one other character. In Star Trek he has not yet, nor has he given that indication, which he did in BattleTech and I convinced him not to for a couple of months. And in Star Trek he had a good reason once he got it clear that psionic powers are just never going to be all that effective in my campaign. But he's kept with his character, so I'm happy. I want people to take a character and run them through the whole campaign -- really develop them.

Another indication, although this is much less certain, is that Chris shows up for my campaign, at least occassionally. The last couple of years Chris has gotten involved in other games on Saturday (and Friday) so he doesn't show up much. It's a testament to my campaign that he does try to show up once in a while. At times, two or three sessions in a row, at other times not at all. And I'm just counting weeks when he can show up, which is every other week.

I must say that I do love running a game. It gives me a chance to run all the genres that I've wanted to play in for years. I get to play God, and a God that is arbitrary and capricious to boot. So many things are "this happens" or "that happens" or "this works" and it doesn't matter what people roll, as long as they don't obviously blow it. I adjust target numbers to the character making the attempt. I rarely let players truly short-circuit an episode. I like changing the rules. I try to keep things dramatically appropriate. That's part of the charm of my campaigns.

One thing I expected from my players was more resistance to my style. I don't think I could play in my campaigns. I purposely made my style to be different than Eric and Shannon. My campaigns are different in tone and conventions than other campaigns we've had. If a player doesn't show up, his character doesn't show up. Experience based on player participation even if there's no game. Keeping track of the characters for the players. I'm really surprised that Pickering and Shannon haven't stomped off in disgust.

Mission-based campaign, another difference. Every session the party has some goal to accomplish, and in Star Trek that tends to be an assigned goal. It's not a "the party can do whatever they want" sort of campaign that you see especially in fantasy games. I like dictating the overall plot. It gives me more control and a better ability to sequence episodes dramatically, not that I do that, but the option is there. It's just another way to differentiate my campaign from the classics that we've had before. I can't do a better open- ended campaign than Eric, or a better character-based campaign than Shannon. Whether or not I run my campaign well, at least it is my campaign, and my defined style.