Is this campaign idea too frustrating? [3.5]

[rezplz]

So I'm dming for a group of people, most of which I haven't dmed much for before, and I wanted to make sure that this idea that I had wouln't piss everyone off too bad.

In the first session the BBEG would likely kidnap the party. The BBEG is a sorcerer who specializes in enchantments. Now, if the party found some really clever way to survive, or escape, or even kill the BBEG (not likely, since he'll be a much higher level, while the PCs will be starting off at level 3) then I can run with it. So I won't be railroading them into this, I'll just be setting the situation up so that this is the most likely outcome ;P.

once captured, the BBEG would use a powerful magic item/artifact/Macguffin to hit the PCs with a kind of special homebrew dominate person thing. It would last for 20 days per casting, but it's a bit different than the normal spell in that while the victim(s) are under the spell, then can try to act against the domination for a short time, but they have to make a will save against the original save DC. If they succeed, they can do whatever action the victim wanted to do - such as telling someone they're under the domination/curse - but if they fail, then they'll take some amount of damage.

I currently have this staff/artifact thing statted out as a save DC 30 to resist, and if they fail a save against it while trying to act against it, they would take 1d6 damage. I was thinking of changing the damage so that it scaled with character level (1d6 per level of the character? That seems too harsh though), or changing it to something like 2 constitution damage.

To avoid the PCs from using it if they somehow got ahold of it, the staff is cursed so that it causes some kind of mental damage to the user, making them somewhat mentally insane, and the BBEG would be casting explosive runes on it daily, making a neat surprise for whoever decided to try to read the staff, probably killing that person and destroying the macguffin at the same time.

Ideally, the group would be forced to do the BBEG's desires for a while. Mostly this would probably involve raiding a dungeon for some powerful object the BBEG wants, or maybe an assassination or two. The players should be able to break it after a few levels, and then focus on getting revenge against the BBEG.


The reasons I'm doing this is that I want the player characters to actually care about taking down the BBEG. The group I normally play with is hard to motivate beyond the standard money rewards, and would generally respond to a villian with "Well why should we care? Let's just go somewhere else where we don't have to worry about it" if they weren't nice enough to just go along with things for my sake. Also, I haven't really done much roleplaying in DnD, since my group has usually been the hack-and-slash type. Hopefully this will encourage some good RP as the PCs try to fight off the curse.

Paladins and clerics and such wouldn't have to worry about falling, since we're not using alignment for this game and they wouldn't be doing these actions willingly anyway.


So what I want to know is, as a player, if you were put into a campaign where your character was basically a cursed, semi-mind-controlled save for the first chapter, would you get frustrated and quit? How long would it take before you got too tired of it? Or is this a bad idea and I should just scrap it entirely?

[ZeroNumerous]

Depends. If you mean a homebrewed charm person effect where the player still gets to play his/her character, but still ultimately must do what the BBEG asks then it's fine.

However, if it's a dominate person effect then you're effectively playing their characters for them except for the odd will save. Which means I would probably just hand you my sheet and wait until the game's over or the plot frees me from the BBEG.

[BooNL]

DC 30 is pretty impossible to break at lvl 3. If you want them to break it long enough to talk 'out of domination' lower it to 15 or 20.

That said. I think you'd be better off putting the players under a geas. They'll still have their own personality that way, but can in no way act against the wishes of the BBEG.

I think this is a good set up for a campaign start, just make sure you don't railroad the players. Have them explore every possible avenue to break the geas.

[kamikasei]

Is it necessary to use mind control? The players might resent it less if the BBEG, say, has a hostage. Or just the equivalent of explosive slave-collars on them ("cross me, and I blow up your head". Or better: "cross me and I blow up your grandfather's/niece's/childhood friend's head").

The trick is that players may decide to ignore any leverage that the BBEG holds over their characters. The way around this is simply to say at the outset, "hey guys, for this campaign I'm thinking of having a villain who has something over you that means you have to do jobs for him that you'd rather not. Is that acceptable, and can you play along, as far as ensuring your characters take his threats and leverage seriously instead of immediately trying to kill him for his impudence regardless of the in-character consequences?"

[rezplz]

ZeroNumerous: Ah, yeah, I guess I should have said charm person instead, since I guess it's a lot more like that spell. Except it doesn't necessarily make the players like the guy - they'll probably hate him. I hope they hate him, actually. That's the idea. And they can be commanded to attack somebody they normally wouldn't. But they would still be able to play their own character, definitely.

BooNL: I suppose an important part of the spell effect that I forgot to mention is that if the PCs try to be sneaky about how they phrase things when trying to talk about, or otherwise try to "convince" the charm effect that they're not actually trying to get rid of it, they'd get some kind of bonus on the check. Somewhere between +5 to +10, depending on how good of a job they did. An example would be using bluff to slip a hidden message to someone, like a cleric of ollidrama (butchered spelling, but anyway only a cleric of the god of thieves would likely be good at understanding hidden messages). Like saying "I've got some weeds in my garden", but really meaning "I have a curse on me".

I'll think about lowering the DC a bit though, but I was thinking that without a combination of a good save and being really clever, at low levels it would only be broken by a natural 20.

[dsmiles]

Being kidnapped/thrown in jail/otherwise stripped of gear as a PC sucks! Most players resent this happening to them, and I've even seen some ragequit over it.

[rezplz]

Is it necessary to use mind control? The players might resent it less if the BBEG, say, has a hostage. Or just the equivalent of explosive slave-collars on them ("cross me, and I blow up your head". Or better: "cross me and I blow up your grandfather's/niece's/childhood friend's head").

The trick is that players may decide to ignore any leverage that the BBEG holds over their characters. The way around this is simply to say at the outset, "hey guys, for this campaign I'm thinking of having a villain who has something over you that means you have to do jobs for him that you'd rather not. Is that acceptable, and can you play along, as far as ensuring your characters take his threats and leverage seriously instead of immediately trying to kill him for his impudence regardless of the in-character consequences?"

That's a good idea, and I might switch to something like that. Wouldn't change things much at all. If they would actually just cooperate with it. One time I tried holding hostage the parents of one of the players, and other people that were supposed to be somewhat important to them. But since most of them were really terribly vague with their backstories I didn't have much to go on. Even the guy whose parents had been kidnapped just said "What, I don't care. They kicked me out for practising magic". They watched, apathetic, as each of the hostages were killed. Parents included.

Maybe if I tried talking to them beforehand it might work. MAYBE. I do like the slave-collar idea though.

dsmiles: Yeah, that does pose a problem, since the PCs would be a bit below their wealth-by-level at first, since they'd be doing stuff for the BBEG. Ragequitting seems a bit extreme though D:

[soir8]

Being kidnapped/thrown in jail/otherwise stripped of gear as a PC sucks! Most players resent this happening to them, and I've even seen some ragequit over it.


Getting arrested and thrown in jail was the 2nd thing to happen to my PCs in the campaign I'm running atm. I bet the guys you play with would hate me :smallsmile:


I like the idea of this campaign, but I agree a Geas would fit better.

Hostages work fine if you get the players emotionally invested in the person taken hostage first. It makes it more fun when you brutally kill the hostage in front of the PCs.

[unre9istered]

Above all, tell your players what they will be dealing with so they can make characters that will play along. I've played characters in the past who, if put in this situation, would just spam the resist button until they broke free or died rather than do something they didn't want to. Most of my chaotic characters would do this on principle rather than have their free will squelched.

[Haarkla]

once captured, the BBEG would use a powerful magic item/artifact/Macguffin to hit the PCs with a kind of special homebrew dominate person thing. It would last for 20 days per casting, but it's a bit different than the normal spell in that while the victim(s) are under the spell, then can try to act against the domination for a short time, but they have to make a will save against the original save DC. If they succeed, they can do whatever action the victim wanted to do - such as telling someone they're under the domination/curse - but if they fail, then they'll take some amount of damage.

....

Ideally, the group would be forced to do the BBEG's desires for a while. Mostly this would probably involve raiding a dungeon for some powerful object the BBEG wants, or maybe an assassination or two.
Yes, it would be too frustrating. You want to use Geas, not Dominate Person.

[valadil]

It could work but I wouldn't recommend it for your first time with this group. I know a couple DMs who could pull this off. I know (and no longer play with) many more who would use it as an excuse to show dominance over the PCs. As a player under a new DM, I'd suspect the latter.

I like the suggestion of a geas. I think that could work. You might also be able to get away with straight up telling the players that they'll start off under someone else's control and that breaking free is the goal of the campaign. Knowing this they'll probably be more accepting of their situation.

[KillianHawkeye]

Geas might work. Dominate? Worst. Campaign. Ever. I'd quit halfway through the first session and never look back. But then again, my gaming group is big enough that we usually have more than one game being run at a time.

[Tyndmyr]

This sounds like an annoying plot. You're level three, and you immediately end up captured by a guy who wants to abuse you with an artifact.

Seriously, if you've got the power to have an artifact that has sickening dominate ability at DC 30, wouldn't you have better things to do than screw with a level three party?

There are a number of other ways to motivate players to kill things...I say drop this one.

[dsmiles]

To expand on my earlier comment:

This isn't walking the line between DMing and RRing. This is blatantly stepping over it right onto the train tracks.

As a DM, I don't like railroading the players. As a player, I hate being railroaded. Most players will get very easily frustrated when they don't have any choices.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh yeah...it is railroading.

The whole "I gave them a path out...it isn't railroading" line is one Ive heard a lot. That's the point...you gave them ONE path out.

[Kylarra]

This is probably not the tactic you want to take with a first time group without discussing it with them first. If they're okay with this starting setup, then go for it, but I'd probably leave a group that tried to pull this on the first meetup.

And definitely a modified geas is what you want more than a dominate.

[Another_Poet]

You have two problem areas here. Both are solvable and can result in happy players.


In the first session the BBEG would likely kidnap the party.

This is bad if it's a surprise, because the players can never view this as a victory. Even dying can be a victory if they go out valiantly.

However if the players are in on it, it might be okay. Before the first session (like when talking about the campaign a week or two beforehand... not like 10 minutes before the session) talk to the players about it. Say "I have this cool idea for a campaign that starts out with the heroes being captured. I wanted to run that by you because I don't want you to think I'm hitting you with the nerf bat. You okay with getting capturedin Session 1?"

This raises the question of whether it's necessary to even go through the capture. You could start the campaign in jail (or wherever the BBEG keeps prisoners) after the capture has already happened. That way the players don't have to lose a battle just to set the stage.

If you do decide its better to start earlier in the timeline and play through the capture, make sure there's something in it for the PCs. Again, tell them upfront that you think it's likely they'll be captured before the end of session 1. But tell them that they will get double XP for every enemy they manage to take down before being captured. That will get the gears turning. Suddenly they're not fighting to win (they know they won't), they're fighting to rack up the kills before the inevitable loss to the much more powerful bad guy. This new goal, of racking up maximum kills, is one they can win. So they can be captured and still feel like winners.

Again, this only works if you are up front with them. They know what they are getting into. (The characters don't, the players do.) Don't make this mistake. I have only put my players in a truly unwinnable situation once in my life but I have never seen a DMing decision breed so much ill will and distrust. Don't make that mistake, be forthright and arrange a way they can participate actively and achieve a goal.


once captured, the BBEG would use a powerful magic item/artifact/Macguffin to hit the PCs with a kind of special homebrew dominate person thing. It would last for 20 days per casting, but it's a bit different than the normal spell in that while the victim(s) are under the spell, then can try to act against the domination for a short time, but they have to make a will save against the original save DC. If they succeed, they can do whatever action the victim wanted to do - such as telling someone they're under the domination/curse - but if they fail, then they'll take some amount of damage.

I would change it up a bit.

First, instead of a Domination effect, go with a Geas effect. This has a few advantages:

It allows a surprising amount of freedom, while still requiring the character to do what is asked - which leaves a lot of room for roleplay
Characters can indirectly work against the BBEG even while working toward their Geas (Okay, what if we bring the item to him like we said, but put contact poison on it? What if we go after the item by foot instead of taking horses? What if we tell an order of paladins what quest we're on and why and let them go pay a visit to Mr. Charms-a-lot?). This lets the players scheme and work on their own goals while still servicing the plot. They get to be active and try to win even when charmed.
The duration is quest-dependent. If you give them a set 20 day duration, it may not last long enough to complete the quest or they might complete it early and you have to degrade them with even more evil orders. Geas establishes a very specific goal and the geas is lifted when that goal is complete. Much more plot-friendly.
The penalties for violating a geas are already written up so you don't have to try to figure out how to scale damage for going against the effect. It's done for you.


Second, what is with this DC 30 will save. If you want it to be impossible then make it impossible. Just say the villain puts a geas on all of you. If a player asks if they get a save either say "No, this powerful curse grips your very soul... it is as if the power comes from something greater than any mortal wizard" (honest and dramatic) or "Yes, I rolled them in secret, you failed" (a lie, but if you're that kind of DM, at least it avoids rules arguments derailing the game).

On the other hand if you want there to be a chance to beat the save then make it more realistic. A 3rd level character with a good will save would have, what, +4 or +5? So make it DC 18. Or even 20. On a good roll any 3rd level character can beat that.

The way you have it set up now no one can ever make the save except on a natural 20. So you are setting up a hope that the players can avoid the effect or go against it but in reality that will only happen 5% of the time. In a 4-person party that means that (on average) every character is going to have to try to resist it 5 times for a single character to succeed even once. That's 19d6 damage spread over the party for every one brief moment of freedom from the effect.

My advice is, if you want it to be unbeatable just make it unbeatable by DM fiat. Players understand (most of them do) and it's more honest. After all, if one person rolled a 20 on their initial save (and then maybe bluffed to act like they were dominated), what would you do? What if all 4 of them rolled nat 20's? It sounds like you want to run a story about characters forced to work for the enemy. If you offer a chance to avoid that story then you better really mean it - "Yes, if you make your save, you are not dominated. For real."

Again, if you have such a fixed premise in mind, it may be best to just make it campaign backstory. "Day one. You are released from prison, under a Geas to retrieve the such-and-such gem for the evil count. You've never felt so violated in your life. You can feel the fresh breeze on your face again, giving you a taste of freedom... but it tastes sour, since your heart is shackled by this villain. To win true freedom is going to be difficult indeed. What do you do?"

Last I want to comment on this:

Now, if the party found some really clever way to survive, or escape, or even kill the BBEG (not likely, since he'll be a much higher level, while the PCs will be starting off at level 3) then I can run with it. So I won't be railroading them into this, I'll just be setting the situation up so that this is the most likely outcome ;P.

This is railroading. Giving only one choice and dressing it up in unbeatable stats is railroading. Enemies of a high enough CR (relative to the party) are eventually classified as "Unbeatable." For four ECL 3 characters, this starts at CR 11 (http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm). (Note that anything CR 8 and up is "Overpowering" however which means you need a miracle to win.) Now I don't know what level your BBEG is but if he is geared up with an item that is DC 30 save-or-lose he has the gear of a CR 15 enemy, minimum. I don't care if he only has 20 hp, with that staff he is CR 15.

I personally am not against a little railroading. A DM needs to do it. I just want to be clear, don't fool yourself, the situation you've described is black-and-white, clear-as-day, there-is-only-one-possible-choice-and-the-DM-has-decreed-it, riggety diggety railroading.

So is this:


To avoid the PCs from using it if they somehow got ahold of it, the staff is cursed so that it causes some kind of mental damage to the user, making them somewhat mentally insane, and the BBEG would be casting explosive runes on it daily, making a neat surprise for whoever decided to try to read the staff, probably killing that person and destroying the macguffin at the same time.

If they get a hold of it how about they can use it on him to make him rip his own entrails out through his bottomside and then dance a waltz with a teddy bear before he passes out. No ill side effects for them, no explosive runes, congratulations on carving out your own destiny, by the way the staff has an evil aura so you might want to destroy it, but no hurry, enjoy your loot.

[rezplz]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. The last thing I wanted was a campaign where nobody was having fun, and I think you guys helped me avoid that. I'm definitely going to warn them that I expect them to be captured at the beginning of the story, and that the first part of the campaign will involve them trying to escape and such. I'll also do the thing where each guy they kill before they get captured gives them double exp. And instead of a dominate-like effect, I'm gonna do something more like charm or geas to still give the players a good amount of control, or the exploding slave collar thing. I'll also be lowering the DC of the save if I go with that route, make more ways for players to get a better circumstance bonus on the save, or both.

Also, if the players make their save, but act like they failed it, I'll reward them by offering them a much earlier chance to escape. My BBEG won't have any ranks in sense motive, and a bad wisdom, so bluffing him should be pretty easy.

[GolemsVoice]

Maybe in addition to all that other posters mentioned, make it so that the sorceror's grasp is slipping sometimes, for just a minute, 5, or even an hour. This can make them even more paranoid, as they could be free every moment, and than somebody has to be near who can be told of the PC's misery!

[rezplz]

Maybe in addition to all that other posters mentioned, make it so that the sorceror's grasp is slipping sometimes, for just a minute, 5, or even an hour. This can make them even more paranoid, as they could be free every moment, and than somebody has to be near who can be told of the PC's misery!

Ooh, I like that idea! I'm gonna use that. I'm wondering if the PCs should be able to tell when the sorcerer's grasp slips... yeah, probably, otherwise there'd be no point right?