I have run dozens of duet campaigns over the years and while I would love to say most of them have been successful ... that would be a lie. For every successful campaign I've run there's been one, maybe two, real disasters. I would love to say that most of my disasters were when I started GMing, but once again that would be a lie. The good news is that I usually figure out after two or three times what I'm doing wrong, but that also means I make a heck of a lot of new mistakes. Fortunately, I am going to share some of my mistakes so you can avoid them. You'll see that I frame most problems as the pull between two competing concepts. A successful duet is always a balancing act and a failed duet is the result of something getting out of balance.

Character vs. Campaign

There are two key concepts in a duet campaign: the character and the campaign. If the two are in harmony, then the campaign has good odds of being successful, but when one is significantly more, let's say, powerful than the other, there are going to be problems. With a group campaign, the campaign concept dominates, but with a duet campaign the GM has to give the PC room to explore and define who she is.

So let's say a GM comes up with an idea for the PC to be the reincarnated leader of a theocracy that controls a few worlds in an interstellar community that is about to be wiped out due to a recurring cycle every 100,000 years when the Old Ones come to destroy all spacefaring races. The PC will be the catalyst for any efforts to fight or flee from this menace. Great campaign concept, huh? Well, it lasted one adventure after which the player said it was simply too much to deal with. The campaign concept was too dominating; it forced the PC onto a plot that dwarfed any other venues for exploring the character concept.

It also works the other way as well. Imagine a player who wants to run two PCs at once, a sister and brother with the brother being blind and both characters, if memory serves, on a quest of justice against someone who wronged their family. The campaign was set in Al-Qadim and the character concept did fit the campaign, but it was an awkward struggle for the player and GM to handle. It lasted a few sessions with good roleplaying and a nifty adventure or two, but the character concept confined the campaign. Additionally, it was very difficult to run a player with two characters who diverged significantly in personality and goals. The character concept needs freedom to develop and it can be constrained by both the campaign and the initial character concept.

Prelude vs. Present

WHEN you begin a campaign is critically important. Imagine for a moment a player suggesting a concept for a D6 Star Wars campaign where she would be an Imperial officer who defects to the Rebel Alliance. Simple enough, but when do you begin the campaign? The GM decided to begin the campaign before the Imperial officer had her change of heart. The Imperial is briefly captured by Rebels during a mission and the player considers her character at this point and makes the obvious decision: the Imperial commits suicide to prevent the Rebels from getting information from her. Campaign over in less than an hour. There is a very important lesson here. The PC on paper will change the moment she is roleplayed. If your campaign is founded on a PC making a specific choice for the campaign to launch then begin the campaign AFTER that choice has been made.

Neither the GM nor the player really knows what the PC will do at the beginning of a campaign. It's one reason I always allow a player to adjust the stats of the PC after a few adventures. No character concept survives contact with the campaign ... just like no campaign concept survives contact with the PC.

Expectations

No GM or player is alike. Certainly a good GM can make most systems and settings entertaining enough, but there is no question that certain systems and settings fit various play styles better. Furthermore people's preferences change depending on what they are looking to roleplay. People also have expertise in games, settings, or subjects that can influence the success or failure of a campaign. It all boils down to the biggest threat to a campaign: expectations.

Let's say you have a player who wants to roleplay in the British Empire during the Victorian Era and the player knows this time period very well, but the GM, well, doesn't. No matter what system or variations you put into the campaign, the GM is going to struggle against the player's expectations. I GMed a few adventures into this campaign but it just wasn't working; we flipped roles with a new campaign later on, with the player now as GM, but that wasn't much better. There was a big gap in expectations and expertise that couldn't be bridged. There are ways to deal with this, but sometimes things just don't mesh.

You also have this problem when you have a GM who is excited about a new system or setting and wants to try it out to a reluctant player. Sometimes the player's reluctance is warranted. Every few years I try an In Nomine campaign and I have yet to get it right as a GM. At this point if I mention In Nomine to people who regularly play with me they roll their eyes and are ready with excuses to bow out. The reverse is also true. Everyone I game with would love a duet with D6 Star Wars or a superhero campaign, but as a GM I have run so many of these campaigns it's hard to find something new and engaging to capture my excitement.

In a lot of ways, expectations are about the desire to have that incredible feeling when everything clicks. Not every campaign is going to be awesome but that's what everyone wants. It's hard though; there are so many variables at play that even partially hitting your mark in an adventure, let alone a campaign, is amazing. It is all the harder when everyone involved has high expectations. It's a Catch-22: you want a lot of enthusiasm and excitement for your campaign, but you don't want expectations to exceed what can be delivered. Expectations are very, very dangerous.

Experimentation vs. Execution

A few years ago, I had reached a point where I had run a lot of campaigns and hit most genres with a decent campaign or two. Now what? Well, I started experimenting and trying new ideas and mixing things up. This was a period of a lot of duds when it came to my duet campaigns. My wife, who accounts for probably 80% of my duet campaigns, was patient to a point, but failed campaign after failed campaign was starting to grate. Eventually, I had an epiphany: basically what I was trying to do was hit a home run by swinging wildly with my various ideas and new approaches. Sure if you connect you might get that home run but until then a lot of strikes and foul balls. I switched instead to focusing on improving my execution of campaigns. Forget the bold ideas and crazy approaches, instead focus on making the best of just solid ideas. I do believe that all GMs should experiment and push themselves to get better, but it's far more effective to do targeted experimentation. This also depends on the player; some players are always up for something bold and crazy even if it falls flat, but most just want to roleplay. Personally, I'm at the point that if I have two failed campaigns in a row I fall back on something far more solid.

Commitment

When do you bail on a failed campaign? Well it depends upon a few things, primarily what exactly is failing. If the player is unhappy at the end of the first adventure then this is a good time to consider ending the campaign. It is very hard to rebound if the player ends the first adventure with a negative opinion of the campaign. Sometimes you can find out what's wrong, like the setup, NPCs, or whatever and make a change, but if there is no connection after one adventure then the campaign is probably doomed. If the player is apathetic, that's nearly as bad, but corrections might save the campaign and probably another adventure or two is in order. If the player is happy, all is well, unless the GM is unhappy. Back to the player though: what all players want in a duet, or really any roleplaying campaign, is for their character to be special, to have a chance at exciting adventure, and to be in control of their PC. That's about it. If a player is unhappy, then something is keeping them from feeling that their PC is special and that they are in control, or the player isn't enjoying the adventure aspect. It's all about empowerment; if the player doesn't feel empowered, then there will be discontent.

Now a GM is usually unhappy for a few common reasons. First, the PC doesn't mesh with the story they want to tell. This is why I don't set up any major story arcs till a few adventures in, because the point of a duet is to tailor to the PC. You're creating the PC's epic story and that is in the hands of the player. This is a big stumbling block for a lot of GMs who are used to group campaigns where the GM has to railroad things more. Second, the GM realizes his initial idea wasn't good. This happens to me every so often, an adventure or two in and I realize my campaign setup is flawed and pigeonholes the campaign. My test before I begin a campaign is to sit down and come up with ten adventure ideas for a campaign. If I struggle to get ten, or all ten are pretty much the same adventure, then the campaign has some systemic problems. Third, the GM gets a better idea after he starts a campaign. I don't usually have this problem, but I know GMs who do, but the trick is to focus on execution not ideas. That's where you get your mileage in campaigns. Still any of these problems can doom a campaign, adjustments can be made, but the GM has to be honest about whether he can make this work.

Final Comments

When a campaign fails it is a disappointment, but it doesn't mean you're a bad GM or bad player. The only bad GM or player is one that doesn't improve and sometimes to improve you have to be bold, which increases the odds of failure. That said, a failed campaign is no question a downer, but the GM and player shouldn't point fingers. It takes two for a duet and it takes two people working together. Commiserate, talk about what went wrong, laugh about the stupid things you did, and try kicking around a new idea together. So you spend a few nights suffering through a few adventures that just don't work ... it's not a big deal and if you learned from your mistakes then it's time well spent.