Campaign Help Needed

[KnotKnormal]

Alright so I had an idea for my next campaign in a world that I've built. The players are familiar with the world and have already helped play through and flesh out a lot of the event leading up to this massive Good Vs. Evil war. This section of world history I want to break up into, 3 different campaigns to be completed in their entirety until we go on to the next, but only the first one am I struggling with.

In the first of 3 campaigns, Evil has risen up and began to take over the world. They near complete victory towards the end of the campaign but something happens to heavily tip the odds. (remaining secret incase one of my players is reading)
Anyway the part that I'm struggling with is I want my players to choose whether the want to play and evil or a good campaign. (ultimately choosing their side on the war.)

The problem is, that if they choose evil their character will become powerful, and the players will feel good, until the end when I inevitably party wipe (or have them die off screen), which will leave them feeling that everything they did was pointless.

And if they choose Good, they will be constantly fighting in loosing battles, maybe winning a small skirmish but the entire army is close behind and they have to retreat anyway. I imagine this will become discouraging to the players, and they feel hopeless and not want to play.

so what can I do? or is this a bad idea as a whole?

Edit: Please read my latest post before commenting

[CombatOwl]

In the first of 3 campaigns, Evil has risen up and began to take over the world. They near complete victory towards the end of the campaign but something happens to heavily tip the odds. (remaining secret incase one of my players is reading)
Anyway the part that I'm struggling with is I want my players to choose whether the want to play and evil or a good campaign. (ultimately choosing their side on the war.)

I strongly, strongly recommend having them all flip that particular coin in advance, as a group. If there's anyone you'd feel would be able to keep their trap shut about a long-term future betrayal to the side of evil, plan it in secret with that character before characters even get made. Seriously, don't let them determine that through play, it'll be like herding cats.


The problem is, that if they choose evil their character will become powerful, and the players will feel good, until the end when I inevitably party wipe (or have them die off screen), which will leave them feeling that everything they did was pointless.

Then give evil a real shot at winning? These sorts of grant good vs. evil campaigns only work well when it is the players' characters' choices and actions that tip the scale. Come up with a scenario where good can secure a surprise victory, and come up with a scenario where evil can somehow turn it around again at the last minute. Both through the actions of the PCs.


And if they choose Good, they will be constantly fighting in loosing battles, maybe winning a small skirmish but the entire army is close behind and they have to retreat anyway. I imagine this will become discouraging to the players, and they feel hopeless and not want to play.

Eh, most of the time people play Dragonlance's War of the Lance, that's pretty much how the story goes until they can figure out how to kill dragons. You retreat from one major battle after another until finally you can start winning sometimes. It's not a wrong style of play, as long as it pays off in the end and there is fun to be had in losing.


so what can I do? or is this a bad idea as a whole?

This style of campaign is very hard to pull off correctly. About the only example I've ever seen that works it well is the aforementioned War of the Lance campaign. But really, both sides ought to have a real shot of making this work if you want to do it right. There really ought to be a risk of failure for both sides, and a chance at success. Otherwise the tension just vanishes. It also does not work at all if the players can't get invested in seeing the outcome--it's not a play style for all groups.

[KnotKnormal]

I strongly, strongly recommend having them all flip that particular coin in advance, as a group. If there's anyone you'd feel would be able to keep their trap shut about a long-term future betrayal to the side of evil, plan it in secret with that character before characters even get made. Seriously, don't let them determine that through play, it'll be like herding cats.

Don't worry I plan to have them decide as a party which side they prefer to be on well in advance.


Then give evil a real shot at winning? These sorts of grant good vs. evil campaigns only work well when it is the players' characters' choices and actions that tip the scale. Come up with a scenario where good can secure a surprise victory, and come up with a scenario where evil can somehow turn it around again at the last minute. Both through the actions of the PCs.

The problem is is that if evil wins that kind of puts the hog wash to my other 2 campaigns, at least initially. I would have to do some major timeline changing and probably even add a campaign to put the story back on track... it's possible, but not preferred, I don't want it to happen, but I won't stop it. At the very least i could tempt them with a big red shiny button to accidentally themselves. Actually i have a really good idea now.


Eh, most of the time people play Dragonlance's War of the Lance, that's pretty much how the story goes until they can figure out how to kill dragons. You retreat from one major battle after another until finally you can start winning sometimes. It's not a wrong style of play, as long as it pays off in the end and there is fun to be had in losing.

maybe instead of them fighting losing battles I could do a clandestine unit type of thing, they are sent off behind enemy lines in an attempt to find a way to tip the balance. It just becomes difficult to provide them support or even introduce new PCs.

I don't know it's going to require a lot of though and careful planning, I just hope i can do it justice.

Thanks for your help, and forgive the internal monolog that i felt i needed to type out.

[Nightgaun7]

Stop writing novels.

Right now you're saying "I need this to happen regardless of what my players do". This is the worst way to run a game. If your players wanted to read, they would. They're there to have an impact that isn't predetermined.

[BWR]

What nightgaun7 said. I can understand the reasoning that when bigger forces come into play, lesser beings can't affect them. It makes sense in universe and it might work for some players but the feeling of no matter what you do you don't really affect something is not fun. You can railroad and make predetermined endings come about but the players should always feel that it comes as a result of their actions, successes and failures. In general it's far better to set up a situation and have the various NPCs react to PCs' involvement rather than have the PCs play predetermined parts. Sometimes it means the ending you wanted to have happen doesn't, but the players feel as though they matter. So what if evil wins? Let them have their time in the sun. Downtime it a bit and throw in something about dissension in the ranks or some other band of plucky heroes who came along and spoiled things after the PCs retired/died.

[KnotKnormal]

Stop writing novels.

Right now you're saying "I need this to happen regardless of what my players do". This is the worst way to run a game. If your players wanted to read, they would. They're there to have an impact that isn't predetermined.

I appologize, my intention is not to railroad my players, but the event in question will take place at some point in time. The who, what, where, when, why, and how is completely dependant on the players. If I force it to happen, there is no point to running the campaign. My plan all along is to let the players trigger it, one way or another. The event itself only serves as a "chapter end marker," for lack of a better term.

[Red Fel]

I appologize, my intention is not to railroad my players, but the event in question will take place at some point in time. The who, what, where, when, why, and how is completely dependant on the players. If I force it to happen, there is no point to running the campaign. My plan all along is to let the players trigger it, one way or another. The event itself only serves as a "chapter end marker," for lack of a better term.

The problem is that, if an event must happen, and the players must do a certain thing in order for it to happen, you have just railroaded the players into that. This means that, for example, if all Evil PCs must lose in order for your "chapter end marker" to trigger, the outcome is already predetermined. Just as you say that if you force it to happen, there is no point to running the campaign; if you force the baddies to lose, or force the good guys to fight a series of losing battles before the tide suddenly turns, there is no point to the players playing the campaign. You've already decided who wins, who loses, and how; you don't need players for that.

If you want this to be a campaign, you must accept and embrace the fact that the players' actions may change the world you have painstakingly created. They may trigger the "chapter end marker" prematurely, or never, or exactly on time.

If you decide upfront that Good PCs will have a long, unhappy, losing slog, while Evil PCs will have an overpowered blast and then lose suddenly, you've ensured that nobody gets what they want from the table. Unless you're prepared to be completely, 100% upfront with the players ("Listen, guys; you can either all play heroes, and it will be a grim, gritty, war of attrition campaign, or you can play villains, wreak havoc, and then die suddenly when the plot demands it - your choice") you shouldn't run a predestined campaign like that.

Of course, if you're willing to be upfront with the players as mentioned above, and they're still onboard, go with it. Railroading isn't inherently bad; when players are okay with it, it works. But don't delude yourself - what you are describing is railroading, if not in the classical sense; you have an envisioned outcome, and no matter what the players do they will reach it in the manner you have prescribed. Accept it.

[KnotKnormal]

Ok so I'm railroading by placing the flag of "DM Controlled" in a single point in the story. But is a bad thing as long as it's the players who decide they want to go touch the flag? As long as I don't beat them in the face with it, they'll think they are the ones who did it right?

Alright, so I've learned it is best to let the Evil party do what it is going to do, this particular campaign will end with either the evil side winning or the party "touching the flag."

My problem is still the good side. I still want the situation to be bleak for the good guys which means losing if the party is part of the general army of the good. But again I bring up the point of running a clandestine unit situation, where the good guys' goal is to go trigger the event. It would have the same end conditions as the evil campaign, but the party would take a different role nearing the end. Either support the NPCs in triggering the event or be the PCs who trigger the event. I could see it working well in either situation as long as the PCs actually like the NPCs.

[Airk]

Scrap it.

It's not "technically" a railroad, but it's not any fun for anyone. You've already decided what's going to happen. Even if you set that up as "hey, the players get to interact with things and do whatever they want" they can't actually influence what happens.

Is "Your six level one characters walk out of the village, and behold, there is a horde of ten thousand goblins on dire wargs riding across the plain at you." a 'railroad'? Maybe not - the players can do whatever they want, but they can't meaningfully influence the course of events, so...what's the point?

You've basically set inexorable events in progress, and are now saying, "Okay, go, have fun!" - and you're trying to justify it with "Well, there's the magic button, and if the PCs push it, they win! That's a meaningful decision!" only it's not, because their only option is to push the button.

This is not a good campaign idea.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

See, now, your initial idea is NOT terrible if you're forward with them about it. The predetermined events is very, very bad; I think saying "this isn't a novel" is a bad comparison, but rather, you're trying to make it like a video game, complete with chapter flags. But saying (honestly) to them that "This game is going to follow the rather common trope about morality in fiction, where the Good path is going to be really hard and chancy, while the Evil path is going to be smoother sailing and probably pretty lucrative, but the likelihood is pretty low that it will turn out well for you."

Then make the PCs' actions important. On the Good side, they delay the Evil armies while civilians escape (maybe), they turn the tides of battles (maybe), and if your players are really ambitious, lucky, and just danged heroic, they turn the tide of war without the plot twist.

If they go Evil, well, you seem to have that figured out, but like, stat out the opposing forces of Good, give them a chance to start to repel that thing that turns things around for Good, and let them run and LIVE. I don't see what about your campaigns would be ruined if the Evil PCs went off and became, like, successful-Evil-general NPCs.

Don't get me wrong, and don't let your players get you wrong either. Railroading is always bad. Illusion of choice might sustain fun, but I find it ethically appalling and if your players DO find out you'll probably lose at least one of them. BUT! Not every game is a sandbox, either. If you're trying to run a particular type of game, your players should respect it, or try to compromise with you at most; I know I would be angry if, say, I was trying to run a kick-down-the-door mercenary combat game and my players brought me Lawful Good members of a religious order dedicated to opposing greed in the world who put everyone that tries to hire them in jail and roleplay their way out of every combat.

Likewise, if you want the story you are going to cooperatively write to be about an epic close-up view of the war between Good and Evil, it's no fun for anyone if one of the players are like "lolol let's be neutral and explore the OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTINENT!" Nor if they take up logistics and turn the whole thing into a numbers game.

The important thing is to be open about your expectations, I guess. You have no idea how many games I've been in that were ruined because the DM and one or more of the players weren't on the same page about what the game is supposed to be about. If you tell them you have some ideas for how it well end and the campaign is supposed to be more about the journey than the destination, and they're cool with that, you're golden.

[ElenionAncalima]

As others have said, you should not have a predetermined ending...especialy if that ending is that the players lose. If part one ends with everyone dying in an unavoidable way...are they really going to want to play part 2?

I don't think you need to scrap the whole thing...but you either need to have an alternate path for an evil party or not allow an evil party.

Also, definitley make the ending less concrete. Its all good and well that they can do what they want in the middle...but they are still going to feel ripped off when it turns out they have no power to change the ending in any significant way. That is almost worse that a straight forward railroad, because it is going to feel like a bait and switch.

Its okay to have an idea where the campaign is going...but it you don't keep things flexible you are going to have a lot of trouble down the road. The good news is...its still early and therefore easy to fix.

[Sebastrd]

I think you're just going to have to let this one go. At best you've got a bit of history to set the tone for the new campaign. Nobody sits down to play D&D so they can fill in the details of someone else's story.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I think you're just going to have to let this one go. At best you've got a bit of history to set the tone for the new campaign. Nobody sits down to play D&D so they can fill in the details of someone else's story.

I'd object to that. Using play to force organic growth of the setting is a very fun method of world-building if you aren't the easily-frustrated type, and if the setting's future use requires something to happen, I would be honored to have my character be an important piece in that event, even if as a player my choices aren't quite as important a piece.

@OP:The big thing is, like Red Fel said, just... Just talk to them about it. It really isn't that hard, and you avoid all the problems if your players are okay with what you're doing. I mean, I would gladly play in this game were you straightforward, as I've already expressed... But if I figured out that you were pulling the fuzzy metaphorical railroad over my eyes and just lying to me that what I was doing mattered after the fact, I'd be angry. I'd probably have to take an extended break from that group, in fact... "Enjoy the 2nd and 3rd campaigns without me" sort of thing.

[KnotKnormal]

Thank you everyone for your input. You've given me a lot to think about. I'm definitely going to talk to my players and inform them on what type of campaign i want to run as well as, what my intentions are as the end of the campaign is approached.

Also I an alternative to the ending. If evil wins that gives me an opportunity to add to my collection of NPCs as well as run another campaign that allows the players to switch sides and seek out this force of good. As of right now I've god a direction and 2 possible outcomes at the end of the campaign.

Thank you again for your help. I'll probably be on here again to inform everyone how the conversation with my players went and also seeking more advice for individual sessions.

[KnotKnormal]

So I talked to my players this weekend About the type of game I want to run, They seemed excited to play a game with direction, rather then most of the more "sandbox" they've been playing. I also gave them their options for which side they want to be on. And surprisingly they chose to be good, and even take the more front lines, fighting loosing battles side of things. which means I'll probably have them support the NPC completing the plot device, or more then likely have to finish it themselves. but now i need scenarios for that type of game play.

I was thinking of taking a "Spec Ops: The Line" approach, where I slowly deteriorate the mental state of the party. But this poses a lot of problems.

I was also thinking a "we are the grunts" type of game, but this will become very repetitive fairly quickly.

Another idea is to mitigate damage done, a lot of rescuing civilians, and protecting or recovering important plot devices. Which is probably the best of the 3 but feels the least like the adventure the players wanted.

So these are the 3 most feasible ideas that I have come up with. I think the best would be a combo of the 3 but I'm trying to come up with the right balance between them.

Any help is appreciated, thank you everyone for your help so far

[kyoryu]

As far as things go, I like looking at campaigns as being about asking questions, and finding out the answer through play.

So, going into this, what questions are being asked that you don't know the answers to? And are the players on-board with finding out the answers to those? Are they okay with the questions that *already* have an answer?

What questions are you okay with being unanswered *by you*, and being answered by the players' actions?

That's where the gameplay actually happens.

[W3bDragon]

All this "you're doing it wrong" talk is a bit much I think. The DM has said on more than one occasion that he's willing to take the plot wherever the PCs go with it. He's simply envisioning one possible (and likely) outcome. As long as the DM creates scenarios in which the PCs can control their own fates, and to a lesser extent, the fate of the campaign plot, then the PCs will have everything to play for.

@KnotKnormal: The biggest issue you have is your attachment to the two future campaigns. I imagine that their premise rests on a very specific outcome of the first campaign. I would highly suggest letting go of those future campaigns and give the current one your full attention. Future campaigns will sort themselves out in time by the PCs' actions in the first campaign giving you plenty of future plot hooks.

As for the type of campaign itself, you already seem to have some ideas. I'd like to add another possible angle for this Good vs Evil war.

Stuck in the middle:

The PCs are "good ol' boys" of a small sleepy town far away from anything interesting. They're the type to take on any trouble that presents itself, be it travelers that got far too drunk and started to hit on the local girls a bit too much, or if a particularly vicious badger took up residence under the chapel pews and needed eviction. Their lack of actual work is barely tolerated because of their occasional good deeds in service to the town. But to face facts, they're just a bunch of bums with delusions of being the town heroes.

Unfortunately for the PCs, the town ends up being in a rather strategic position for one of the battle lines of the war. A decent sized unit of the good army starts some operations nearby, and their initial presence ends up being a boon for the town's economy.

However, the boys (PCs) end up with a lot of work on their hands keeping some of the rowdier soldiers in line as well as dealing with the flood of speculating merchants bringing even less disciplined body guards with them, body guards that are looking for a good time in this backwater town.

The boys eventually start to get some recognition from the locals for their deeds in deal with the various problems that arise. Successful or not, at least someone is standing up for the town. Even the leader of the good army's unit takes notice.

Then, as Martin Lawrence said in Bad Boys 2: "**** just got real."

At a predetermined time, the Evil army marches on the town. The town is not much more than a speed bump for the massive multi unit force surging forward to secure a tactical position for the upcoming war. The town suddenly finds itself under occupation and deep behind the evil army's front lines. The PCs can be an integral part of ensuring the sacked town doesn't get destroyed by the occupation. They could also be more ambitious and form a resistance. They could enlist with the evil army and hope their status as locals grants them some minor control over the town's future. The good army's unit would have retreated rather quickly, and the unit leader wouldn't mind drafting some good men to bolster his unit at a time of need. The PCs could join the good army's unit and keep an eye on the town from a far, working on a way to free it from its occupation, while having to deal with military orders that place the good of the war above the value of their small town.

On a tangent, the boys might even find out about the evil army's march early and attempt to stop it. A herculean task for certain, but not completely impossible. They might find ways of altering the Evil commander's plans. They could convince the Good army to bring a much larger unit and hold them at bay. The options are endless.

The basic premise of the campaign would be:

Will the town survive the war of Good vs Evil?
Will the good ol' boys rise to the challenges around them and realize their dreams of heroism?

[KnotKnormal]

Will the town survive the war of Good vs Evil?
Will the good ol' boys rise to the challenges around them and realize their dreams of heroism?[/SPOILER]

Really like this idea. It's a nice low level campaign where the players have to usr their head to solve the problems rather then their character's combat prowess. I'll have to talk to my players again.

Thanks a lot for the help.

[momogila]

Really like this idea. It's a nice low level campaign where the players have to usr their head to solve the problems rather then their character's combat prowess. I'll have to talk to my players again.

Thanks a lot for the help.

thanks for help

http://watchfree.me/114/w.png