PDA

View Full Version : Would this start of the campaign work?



MicHag
2012-07-19, 03:41 AM
For a new campaign i got an interesting idea (although it has probably been done before, never read about it before though).

When introducing my campaign to the players, i will tell them they cannot tell each other beforehand what they are playing.

On the first session, i will split the group in two. Leaving one part in a room, while i start the session with the other. That party will be at the verge of starting an encounter. As they will soon find out, they are going to fight each other, once the combat starts, the other party joins us.
I am not set on specific story yet, it could be an empire vs its rebels, evil vs good, goblins vs orcs,....

In the end, one of the parties wins, and the rest of the campaign we will play that side. So if the goblins win, the losing party will create new goblin characters and that is where the campaign starts.

Problems:
- Half the people will need to change character after the first session
- I will need to start building 2 campaign stories, unless of course i do the goblins vs orcs (or similar) and just do some switcherooing to make it work either way.

Would you as a player appreciate this kind of start of the campaign?
Do you foresee any other mayor problems?

TheOOB
2012-07-19, 04:04 AM
Well first, you should always mention what game system you are using, assuming D&D also level is good to note.

Anyways, I think this is a bad idea. If you do it the way you stated, half the players are going to lose the plays they created. That means if they created a character they really likes, and put a lot of work into them, doesn't matter, that character is garbage, not only that, but they are being forced to create a new character that may be one they don't want to play.

Second, it's always good for the party to create their characters as a group, that way you can fill all the roles out and make meaningful interactions between characters. The losing team will end up feeling like extras, not being part of this, and feeling like that have to fill gaps in the team rather than making unique characters.

Third, if you do tell the players what you're doing before you do it(which is slightly better IMO), you run the risk of players creating characters they don't care about, or not putting effort into them because they might lose them right away.

Before you do this, answer this question: How does determining the focus of the campaign based on a battle between the PC's first session make the game better than just asking the players what side they want to play before they make characters?

Tanngrisnir
2012-07-19, 08:14 AM
I'd have to say this is a bad idea too.

I put a great deal of effort into creating characters with detailed back stories, motivations, hopes, dreams, fears etc. I have to say I'd be really annoyed if I did all that and was really excited to play the concept I had created only to be told he dies in the very first encounter and I have to play something else instead.

Jay R
2012-07-19, 08:38 AM
Let me get this straight. The players are forbidden to coordinate. They will start a non-PvP game with PvP. And half the players must throw away their characters after one game.

I'm sure you think this is an intriguing idea, but the lessons that you are teaching them at the start of the game are:
1 Teamwork will be prevented,
2. Don't trust the other players,
3. Don't trust the DM, and
4. Don't care about their own characters.

Do you really want to have a game where the players have learned these lessons?

The best possible result is that they find a way not to fight each other, to join forces, and to show the DM that anti-PC railroads won't work.

MicHag
2012-07-19, 08:46 AM
Well first, you should always mention what game system you are using, assuming D&D also level is good to note.

It's D&D 3.5 and they will start at level 4.


Anyways, I think this is a bad idea. If you do it the way you stated, half the players are going to lose the plays they created. That means if they created a character they really likes, and put a lot of work into them, doesn't matter, that character is garbage.

This problem i already adressed, i could point out to the players the character might be short-lived.
I could also start the campaign at level 1 (needing 1 xp to go to level 2 or so) to make it hurt less.


Not only that, but they are being forced to create a new character that may be one they don't want to play.

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. Why would the player build a character they do not want to play? I am not forcing anything upon them except that a new character must be build. I don't see why that would be something they would not want to play.


Second, it's always good for the party to create their characters as a group, that way you can fill all the roles out and make meaningful interactions between characters. The losing team will end up feeling like extras, not being part of this, and feeling like that have to fill gaps in the team rather than making unique characters.

Our group never really makes a team that has all gaps filled up, usually all players make their characters seperately. Currently we have a party of 5 without a frontline fighter.


Third, if you do tell the players what you're doing before you do it(which is slightly better IMO), you run the risk of players creating characters they don't care about, or not putting effort into them because they might lose them right away.

This is not an option, the surprise has to come in the first session.


Before you do this, answer this question: How does determining the focus of the campaign based on a battle between the PC's first session make the game better than just asking the players what side they want to play before they make characters?

Because my players like it when their actions (this could include losing a battle) has a mayor impact on the story. They have said so before, although they did not have this huge an impact in mind, but rather "helping or not helping that man has an impact on the story".

MicHag
2012-07-19, 08:49 AM
Let me get this straight. The players are forbidden to coordinate. They will start a non-PvP game with PvP. And half the players must throw away their characters after one game.

I'm sure you think this is an intriguing idea, but the lessons that you are teaching them at the start of the game are:
1 Teamwork will be prevented,
2. Don't trust the other players,
3. Don't trust the DM, and
4. Don't care about their own characters.

Do you really want to have a game where the players have learned these lessons?

The best possible result is that they find a way not to fight each other, to join forces, and to show the DM that anti-PC railroads won't work.

I don't see how those lessons will be thought this way. One party dies, so why would the new character who will join the winning party have any grudge against them or prevent them to have teamwork? They could see creating a new character as a nuisance (some do, some don't), and that is my worry, since that reduces their fun. I am not worried they will like me less, because they won't.
What i am hoping for is they like the start of the campaign better than they dislike losing their character, but from the responses i get here, that might not be the case.

Are you talking about players not trusting one another or characters not trusting one another?
I am positive that all the people in my group are mature enough to let their "defeat" go and not hold grudges.

I also don't see how this makes me untrustworthy?
Well, i don't mind the players don't trusting me, but i don't think you mean what i mean now. You mean in the most negative way possible i think.
I don't mind players thinking: "Hmmm, i don't trust that NPC, he (and thus the DM) is up to something".

The 4th issue i adressed, and i am aware this is problematic.

A joining of the original 2 parties will not be possible, simply because both set of players will be at war as far as the story goes.

You could call this a railroad, but it's just the start of "the players actions decide what happens to the story", so i don't think it's really fair to call it that.

MicHag
2012-07-19, 09:01 AM
only to be told he dies in the very first encounter and I have to play something else instead.

I will not tell you that. You will fight for your life! Or not....

Rallicus
2012-07-19, 09:22 AM
You know your players better than we do. You have the best opinion as to whether or not they'd react angrily to being killed first session.

The problem with using a system like DnD 3.5 is that the classes are incredibly imbalanced. I think that poses more of a problem than the players' reaction to dying in the first encounter because, let's face it, a cleric vs fighter battle is most likely going to turn out pretty embarrassing.

Run it by your players first, but keep it subtle. Something like: "Half of you will die in the first session. Are you willing to take this risk?"

Kuma Kode
2012-07-19, 09:35 AM
While the idea is neat, others have raised very valid objections to it. If I were going to play a character, I will spend a lot of time and effort into making it a good character. If I find out you planned for a 50% chance he'd die in the first session, I would feel pretty cheated. Why did you let me invest all that time and emotional energy into creating something you planned on potentially taking away from me? It's worse because it's a situation you engineered, which means it would be you to blame for my wasted time rather than crazy stupid dice.

There would be a little bit of a grudge. I wouldn't be sure if you would plan something later. Even if I trusted you that there wouldn't be another engineered situation like that, it would still leave me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I would be much less inclined to make my second character nearly as interesting because you just trained me to limit investment in it.

Even if I didn't have to do that, two (or more, if the battle is close and I'm the only survivor) of my friends got cheated out of their characters. That would still undermine my trust.

Whether or not the losing characters feel secondary depends on the group. If a group is flexible filling whatever empty roles doesn't matter so much, or if your group doesn't care about roles. If they do, then they'll feel like they're building their characters around the winners rather than with the winners.

The issue with trusting the DM is that the DM has complete control over the environment. Mistrust of the DM is fundamentally different from mistrust of an NPC. When you get into a game, you trust the DM to engineer encounters and plots that are fun and interesting, and if you arbitrarily take a character away, or engineer a situation specifically to kill half the party, that undermines that trust.

SUGGESTION: False protagonist. Ever played a game where in the intro you play a different character than what you end up with? Try that. Design some characters yourself, then hand them arbitrarily to different people. Have them battle with fun characters that they aren't emotionally attached to, and whichever side wins they make characters for. Make it some important battle that even though it's between a handful of people, it decides how the war swings. Maybe the humans are trying to deliver important information and if the goblins stop that, they destroy some big stronghold and take it over. Later you can include the survivors as NPC questgivers or whatever.

MicHag
2012-07-19, 09:39 AM
While the idea is neat, others have raised very valid objections to it. If I were going to play a character, I will spend a lot of time and effort into making it a good character. If I find out you planned for a 50% chance he'd die in the first session, I would feel pretty cheated. Why did you let me invest all that time and emotional energy into creating something you planned on potentially taking away from me? It's worse because it's a situation you engineered, which means it would be you to blame for my wasted time rather than crazy stupid dice.

There would be a little bit of a grudge. I wouldn't be sure if you would plan something later. Even if I trusted you that there wouldn't be another engineered situation like that, it would still leave me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I would be much less inclined to make my second character nearly as interesting because you just trained me to limit investment in it.

Even if I didn't have to do that, two (or more, if the battle is close and I'm the only survivor) of my friends got cheated out of their characters. That would still undermine my trust.

Whether or not the losing characters feel secondary depends on the group. If a group is flexible filling whatever empty roles doesn't matter so much, or if your group doesn't care about roles. If they do, then they'll feel like they're building their characters around the winners rather than with the winners.

The issue with trusting the DM is that the DM has complete control over the environment. Mistrust of the DM is fundamentally different from mistrust of an NPC. When you get into a game, you trust the DM to engineer encounters and plots that are fun and interesting, and if you arbitrarily take a character away, or engineer a situation specifically to kill half the party, that undermines that trust.

SUGGESTION: False protagonist. Ever played a game where in the intro you play a different character than what you end up with? Try that. Design some characters yourself, then hand them arbitrarily to different people. Have them battle with fun characters that they aren't emotionally attached to, and whichever side wins they make characters for. Make it some important battle that even though it's between a handful of people, it decides how the war swings. Maybe the humans are trying to deliver important information and if the goblins stop that, they destroy some big stronghold and take it over. Later you can include the survivors as NPC questgivers or whatever.

I really like your suggestion, this might solve all problems and still make for an interesting start of the campaign. Thank you!

TheOOB
2012-07-19, 01:19 PM
I still don't think you adequately answered the question "How does doing this make the campaign better than if you hadn't", it's a serious question and one that needs a good answer.

You said that your players like to have an impact on the story, but are you saying that if you don't do this will they not have an impact on the story? Is the only way you can think of to allow the players to affect the story simply what side they fight in based on the results of a PVP battle? If so, you might want to think of another campaign.

While I don't think the idea is entirely without merit, I don't think anything good can come out of forcing half your players to be killed in the first session, create new characters, and then work for the victors. That can cause all matter of problems and bad blood.

What if you do the following, let the party as a whole choose what side they are on, then make them take party in a significant military engagement, give them some sort of objective key to their sides victory(take out an officer, or disable some siege engines, or open some fort gates, something like that). Make their objective hard, and inform the players that the campaign will have a rough start and death is possible(never plan on killing a character, a player should always feel they could have prevented their character death).

Have the results of the players special mission determine the results of the battle, which is a very important battle.

If their side wins, their army has the advantage and the campaign is mostly one of conquest, their army advancing and the party helping them win the war.

If their side loses their army has the disadvantage, and the campaign is mostly the party trying to slow down(or halt) the invasion of their own lands, trying to stop a losing war.

Tanngrisnir
2012-07-20, 02:31 AM
I will not tell you that. You will fight for your life! Or not....

Just to clarify, I mean having your character die in the first encounter and finding out there is no way to resurrect him. Not literally being told before the fight that your character will die and you will have to make another.


SUGGESTION: False protagonist. Ever played a game where in the intro you play a different character than what you end up with? Try that. Design some characters yourself, then hand them arbitrarily to different people. Have them battle with fun characters that they aren't emotionally attached to, and whichever side wins they make characters for. Make it some important battle that even though it's between a handful of people, it decides how the war swings. Maybe the humans are trying to deliver important information and if the goblins stop that, they destroy some big stronghold and take it over. Later you can include the survivors as NPC questgivers or whatever.

I love this idea and fully intend to steal it and use it myself. Thanks.