PDA

View Full Version : Help with sword and sorcery campaign



nrg89
2015-01-16, 12:57 PM
So, I have an adventure idea that I would like to develop into a campaign of sword and sorcery adventure. I have some problems with ideas of where to take it from there and would like to hear some suggestions.

I've almost always done high fantasy campaigns where the PCs feel like superheroes who doesn't have anything to fear and I'm a little tired of it, but also very inexperienced and could very well fall into the similar tropes if I'm not careful. They're starting at level 1 in a campaign setting taking place during the dawn of the iron age (so, a very, very low-tech and low-magic setting) based upon Ancient Mediterranean civilizations societies and mythologies (with some borrowed from Ancient India) where wealth disparity is so high that they need to be connected to get good gear. This is the synopsis of the first adventure:

The PCs are young nobles of a city state modeled after Sparta, who are yet to end their contractual service to the city because they have to do a civic deed for the city first. There's rumors of a temple built by a dragon (who are long since extinct) in a volcano a day's journey away. Since this whole region is basically a chain of volcanoes, that particular one is not settled despite the mineral findings and fertile ground because it was not the most available one among others, so nobody knows for sure. Plus, learned men say it could be prime for an eruption.
However, kobold sightings have been reported en route to that volcano. Kobolds trace their ancestry to dragons, and everyone knows they're obsessed about finding out more about the dragons so these facts coupled with the risk they're taking when they travel over settlements who could kill them leads the city council to conclude that the rumors could be true, and the kobolds are going to plunder the dragon temple in that case.
The players are assigned to beat the small band of kobolds and check if there really is a temple inside the volcano. If they do this their service is finally over and they can finally form their own decisions about what to do with their lives.

Aside from fighting the kobolds inside the volcano, I will regularly roll on a table to see what geological activity will happen now (I'm an engineer, not a geologist or volcanologist, so they won't necessarily be very accurate). After a certain amount of magmatic quakes (which will affect combat and maybe lead to some cave ins), which can have differing strengths, add up to a certain level of strength there will be a real eruption, but not of the St. Helen Mega Explosion type, which the players will have to escape from.

Within the temple is an artifact: a magical mace made by a dragon to aid a Rakshasa (who were also made by the dragons, when the Rakshasa became evil they killed the dragons) between reincarnations as a sort of "memory aid". It talks telepathically to anyone holding the shaft and is intelligent, but other than that it doesn't offer any other bonuses. It belonged to a great Rakshasa who was involved in the war with the dragons, but he lost it when he was very young (in Rakshasa terms) and not yet corrupted by his lust for power.
The mace has been lying here without a master for many centuries and want to return to his master since he still remembers him as a kind, respectful and witty warrior whom the mace has had many deep discussions with.

I'm not sure what should happen when the players come back to the city with the mace. Everyone knows the Rakshasa are very evil nowadays and don't want this artifact to end up with one, and very few details are known about the war with dragons so this mace is very interesting indeed since it could offer some clues to who one of the most powerful Rakshasa really was (I've not decided if he's met some sort of "final death" yet). Now that the temple is gone from the volcanic eruption, this artifact is all that remains of it, too.
I have not yet made any NPCs representing the city council the players can interact with and will probably be improvised on the spot. I don't really have anything planned further ahead. My players like Indiana Jones-style treasure hunting and over arching plots but also roll their eyes when it's too high stakes.

Any suggestions of which doors I could offer my players to open?

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 01:52 PM
I've almost always done high fantasy campaigns where the PCs feel like superheroes who doesn't have anything to fear and I'm a little tired of it, In a lot of ways, it doesn't matter what you're tired of, because in a lot of ways a campaign isn't about the GM. Your preferences matter, but only as far as they also interest the players.


but also very inexperienced and could very well fall into the similar tropes if I'm not careful. They're starting at level 1 in a campaign setting taking place during the dawn of the iron age (so, a very, very low-tech and low-magic setting) based upon Ancient Mediterranean civilizations societies and mythologies (with some borrowed from Ancient India) where wealth disparity is so high that they need to be connected to get good gear. Get good buy-in with what you're trying to achieve with that setting. It won't be everyone's cup of tea.


This is the synopsis of the first adventure: The idea of an adventure having a "synopsis," like a story, is a dangerous one. It gets one into the mindset of the adventure having to go or being likely to go a particular way which, once players are involved, is not guaranteed.


The PCs are young nobles of a city state modeled after Sparta, who are yet to end their contractual service to the city because they have to do a civic deed for the city first. There's rumors of a temple built by a dragon (who are long since extinct) in a volcano a day's journey away. Since this whole region is basically a chain of volcanoes, that particular one is not settled despite the mineral findings and fertile ground because it was not the most available one among others, so nobody knows for sure. Plus, learned men say it could be prime for an eruption. That's nice for you to know, but don't be surprised if the players either don't care, or don't think it makes sense.

The same goes with the rest of the history you talk about: don't expect the players to care or understand. Maybe you have some cool development or surprise you want to reveal later, such as the dragons not actually being dead, but meanwhile you're going to have players who are involved in things that don't seem to have any significance to them.


The players are assigned to beat the small band of kobolds and check if there really is a temple inside the volcano. If they do this their service is finally over and they can finally form their own decisions about what to do with their lives. Assigned quests are iffy. Why don't the players get to choose their adventure right off the bat?


Aside from fighting the kobolds inside the volcano, I will regularly roll on a table to see what geological activity will happen now (I'm an engineer, not a geologist or volcanologist, so they won't necessarily be very accurate). "Sword and sorcery" implies "not very accurate." Keep that in mind. Accuracy should not be a high priority.


After a certain amount of magmatic quakes (which will affect combat and maybe lead to some cave ins), which can have differing strengths, add up to a certain level of strength there will be a real eruption, but not of the St. Helen Mega Explosion type, which the players will have to escape from. What if they fail to?


Within the temple is an artifact: a magical mace made by a dragon to aid a Rakshasa (who were also made by the dragons, when the Rakshasa became evil they killed the dragons) between reincarnations as a sort of "memory aid". It talks telepathically to anyone holding the shaft and is intelligent, but other than that it doesn't offer any other bonuses. It belonged to a great Rakshasa who was involved in the war with the dragons, but he lost it when he was very young (in Rakshasa terms) and not yet corrupted by his lust for power. Nice, but to the players it's just going to be a mace. They might not even decide it's worth taking. Might be best if it's just lost in the eruption. The players aren't going to be pleased if they find out that taking it out put it in reach of the Rakshasas. Players hate being at fault.


The mace has been lying here without a master for many centuries and want to return to his master since he still remembers him as a kind, respectful and witty warrior whom the mace has had many deep discussions with. Pretty much irrelevant to the players.


I'm not sure what should happen when the players come back to the city with the mace. Everyone knows the Rakshasa are very evil nowadays and don't want this artifact to end up with one, and very few details are known about the war with dragons so this mace is very interesting indeed since it could offer some clues to who one of the most powerful Rakshasa really was (I've not decided if he's met some sort of "final death" yet). Will the characters care who the most powerful Rakshasa was?


Now that the temple is gone from the volcanic eruption, this artifact is all that remains of it, too. Unless they left it there.


I have not yet made any NPCs representing the city council the players can interact with and will probably be improvised on the spot. Good! I highly encourage this.


I don't really have anything planned further ahead. My players like Indiana Jones-style treasure hunting and over arching plots but also roll their eyes when it's too high stakes. Quite understandable.


Any suggestions of which doors I could offer my players to open? Since you have established players, I recommend that you ask them your questions. Find out what kind of adventure they're interested in. Work with them to come up with the history that their character would (and wouldn't) know. As a player, I will come up with reasons for my character to take the evil artifact that he should have left well enough alone, as lone as I know that I'm driving some interesting adventure by doing so. If I feel like I'm being tricked, I might not.

Improvise. Collaborate.

Good luck.

nrg89
2015-01-16, 03:19 PM
Get good buy-in with what you're trying to achieve with that setting. It won't be everyone's cup of tea. Half of the players are absolutely new to the game and the more seasoned half thought the setting sounded really cool and offered some help with the tone and tech level. DnD's reputation inevitably preceding a test game, I do hope I've nailed this setting and that possible expectations of high middle ages, high magic and high fantasy isn't as high. I think I'll ask my new players about that, though.


The idea of an adventure having a "synopsis," like a story, is a dangerous one. It gets one into the mindset of the adventure having to go or being likely to go a particular way which, once players are involved, is not guaranteed. Noted.


That's nice for you to know, but don't be surprised if the players either don't care, or don't think it makes sense. Yeah, I was just hoping fleshing it out would offer some sort of help in finding ways to spin this story after we call it a night and I'm back to the drawing board.


The same goes with the rest of the history you talk about: don't expect the players to care or understand. Maybe you have some cool development or surprise you want to reveal later, such as the dragons not actually being dead, but meanwhile you're going to have players who are involved in things that don't seem to have any significance to them. Absolutely. Roleplaying a guy reading up on dragons is about as exciting as reading about dragons yourself. Might as well do it with your smartphone on the subway instead of showing up for a game night.


Assigned quests are iffy. Why don't the players get to choose their adventure right off the bat? It's mostly to give my new players a gentle push in the right direction. I hope my other players will improvise a lot and take take them under their wing but if not sand boxing I feel is not the right way to introduce DnD


What if they fail to? Well, here's where I would like some help. I don't know which other directions I could take if this happens. Maybe having a villainous kobold enacting revenge or something?


Nice, but to the players it's just going to be a mace. They might not even decide it's worth taking. Might be best if it's just lost in the eruption. The players aren't going to be pleased if they find out that taking it out put it in reach of the Rakshasas. Players hate being at fault. Well, since it's just a mace and the rakshasa in question lost it many centuries ago, he doesn't have much use of it (if he's still "in circulation", haven't decided yet) and since he didn't get it in the life after he was killed with it, he presumes it's gone. I hink it would be cool if the players thought it belonged to some good warrior and later on it would be revealed that this warrior became very, very evil and not someone the players really want to go to. Or, it could just feel like a cheat trap, I'm not sure. Either way, I'm not revealing who the mace belonged to, or what purpose it has, right of the bat because I don't want it to feel like the mace is saying "Hi, and thank you for picking me up! I'm the plot device! If you don't mind, I would like to be taken to the designated villain, please!". It will take a few adventures, at least, and I don't want the players to regret their decision.


Since you have established players, I recommend that you ask them your questions. Find out what kind of adventure they're interested in. We had a suspenseful, stealthy breaking-out-of-prison adventure once and they told me that they were positively thrilled when I was rolling the guards spot checks. They also liked treasure hunting campaigns more than the one with about preventing a war (they said they lacked character motivation in the latter).

Thanks for your thoughts! You've been helpful! :smallsmile:

Yora
2015-01-16, 03:30 PM
It sounds to me more like a regular style campaign in an Iron Age setting that a sword & sorcery style campaign to me, but that shouldn't be any problem when it comes to using your idea.

Knaight
2015-01-16, 03:44 PM
The game honestly doesn't sound very sword and sorcery. The PCs are well connected, they are respected members of a community, they are out on a task for other people; they are everything sword and sorcery characters generally aren't. The iron age aesthetic does help, but if you're going for sword and sorcery there are a few other major points to consider. The big ones:

A human centered world: The PCs will all have to be human. The vast majority of antagonists will be human. While monsters do show up, most of them are pretty much beastial humans (with lots of other apes), though the occasional dragon or giant oversized snake is very much appropriate.
Political instability: There might be the decaying remnants of a few empires around, but city states are the generally the biggest sedentary civilization around. Mobile tribes are far more common, and there's constant warfare, tribal lands shifting constantly, city states rising and falling, so on and so forth.
Free agent iconic characters: The iconic characters of sword and sorcery tend to be lots of things. Conan has been a thief, a raider, a pirate, a king, a mercenary, a treasure hunter, so on and so forth. Permanent allegiances are rare, and what recurring enemies show up may be friends one adventure and foes the next.



Alternately, keep the existing setting. It might help to bill it a bit more as iron age fantasy though, for clarity purposes. On another note, if you haven't picked out a system yet, a friend of mine has been working with an explicitly sword and sorcery system named Blood Sweat and Steel. It's quality, and while it's not quite released it's very much in a playable state. It might be worth looking into it.

In a lot of ways, it doesn't matter what you're tired of, because in a lot of ways a campaign isn't about the GM. Your preferences matter, but only as far as they also interest the players.

No. You are one of the people at the table, that alone makes your preferences as relevant as everyone else's. The broader setting is largely your domain, and your interest in it directly affects the quality of the game (heck, it might even effect the quality of the game, or at least a large portion of it), so that makes it more relevant. If the preferences were about PC specifics, then there would be a case about the preferences not mattering that much. As for buy-in, not much more is needed than usual.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 04:01 PM
Half of the players are absolutely new to the game and the more seasoned half thought the setting sounded really cool and offered some help with the tone and tech level. DnD's reputation inevitably preceding a test game, I do hope I've nailed this setting and that possible expectations of high middle ages, high magic and high fantasy isn't as high. I think I'll ask my new players about that, though. You say you're new, but this and the rest of your response sounds like you've got your heart in the right place. That's most of what you need.


Yeah, I was just hoping fleshing it out would offer some sort of help in finding ways to spin this story after we call it a night and I'm back to the drawing board. I recommend not being the sole author of all this. Get suggestions from the players. They'll remember and care about things more.


Absolutely. Roleplaying a guy reading up on dragons is about as exciting as reading about dragons yourself. Might as well do it with your smartphone on the subway instead of showing up for a game night. YES! Thank you!


It's mostly to give my new players a gentle push in the right direction. I hope my other players will improvise a lot and take take them under their wing but if not sand boxing I feel is not the right way to introduce DnD I guess I mean more in terms of asking the players how they'd like to open. You say they like the setting, so they can probably think of a few cool adventures they'd dig having in it.


Well, here's where I would like some help. I don't know which other directions I could take if this happens. Maybe having a villainous kobold enacting revenge or something? For what? See, I'm already lost, and you've laid everything out for me. I'm a bit slow, but this is a common problem: players not knowing why things are happening, or why they're being told to do things.

You appear to really only have one thing going on, so you need certain things to happen, such as the mace being recovered. Can you think of a broader, more vague sort of issue the region could be facing, so that if one leg is knocked out the larger threat and plan still remains? Give yourself multiple ways of reaching the conclusion, and several conclusions you'd be happy with. And be prepared to improvise more.


Well, since it's just a mace and the rakshasa in question lost it many centuries ago, he doesn't have much use of it (if he's still "in circulation", haven't decided yet) and since he didn't get it in the life after he was killed with it, he presumes it's gone. I hink it would be cool if the players thought it belonged to some good warrior and later on it would be revealed that this warrior became very, very evil and not someone the players really want to go to. Or, it could just feel like a cheat trap, I'm not sure. Either way, I'm not revealing who the mace belonged to, or what purpose it has, right of the bat because I don't want it to feel like the mace is saying "Hi, and thank you for picking me up! I'm the plot device! If you don't mind, I would like to be taken to the designated villain, please!". It will take a few adventures, at least, and I don't want the players to regret their decision. Right now, I think it will feel that way.

One thing you could do that really does work surprisingly well is to say "At the end of this adventure, the party will have acquired this mace, because that's where the story goes. It's sort of a Hobbit/Lord of the Rings situation: Bilbo has to find the Ring. So, yeah, it's ultimately bad for the characters, but I'm hoping you'll find the ensuing situations interesting." Or something, just so long as they get that you're not trying to "trick" them, but to bring about something fun for them. Players will often want to help bring about the game they're playing in, and you can bet that they'll remember and care about that mace much more when their characters encounter it.


We had a suspenseful, stealthy breaking-out-of-prison adventure once and they told me that they were positively thrilled when I was rolling the guards spot checks. They also liked treasure hunting campaigns more than the one with about preventing a war (they said they lacked character motivation in the latter). Great. Knowing stuff like that is important. Keep talking to them and find out specifically what kinds of things they'd like in their game.

You're on the right track. Good luck.

nrg89
2015-01-16, 04:10 PM
It sounds to me more like a regular style campaign in an Iron Age setting that a sword & sorcery style campaign to me, but that shouldn't be any problem when it comes to using your idea.

The game honestly doesn't sound very sword and sorcery. The PCs are well connected, they are respected members of a community, they are out on a task for other people; they are everything sword and sorcery characters generally aren't. Ah, I see. I wanted social status to be a big thing in my world, and I asked my players about agency being taken from them and it didn't really wet their whistle. So, i figured they would have to be noble and try to keep their family names clean in order to do stuff, so I would have some restrictions but not making them too limited.

The quest ending their formal servitude to the city was also added to make it feel more like a personal quest instead of Superman saving the day. Maybe it just feels tacked on, though.


The iron age aesthetic does help, but if you're going for sword and sorcery there are a few other major points to consider. I need all the help I can get, this is uncharted territory for me.

A human centered world: The PCs will all have to be human. The vast majority of antagonists will be human. While monsters do show up, most of them are pretty much beastial humans (with lots of other apes), though the occasional dragon or giant oversized snake is very much appropriate. Check. I also thought the rakshasa would work well for this since they are mostly human, just really wicked looking. Some of them also fit the reptilian theme.

Political instability: There might be the decaying remnants of a few empires around, but city states are the generally the biggest sedentary civilization around. Mobile tribes are far more common, and there's constant warfare, tribal lands shifting constantly, city states rising and falling, so on and so forth.
This is very much the case. I don't have any nation states or kingdoms, the closest I have is an empire with expansion fever, whose armies are constantly putting down revolutions. Other than that, it's city states who are loosely tied to each other at best and violently conflicting at worst. In fact, beyond the city the PCs are starting at is a region of celtic inspired tribes who would be very happy to kill and loot a couple of nobles.


Free agent iconic characters: The iconic characters of sword and sorcery tend to be lots of things. Conan has been a thief, a raider, a pirate, a king, a mercenary, a treasure hunter, so on and so forth. Permanent allegiances are rare, and what recurring enemies show up may be friends one adventure and foes the next. This sounds very sand-boxy and like I have to heavily involve my players in adventure preparation.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 04:19 PM
No. You are one of the people at the table, that alone makes your preferences as relevant as everyone else's. Which, individually, isn't very. But the players are a large subgroup within the group, and if that group has a preference then it should weigh heavily against the preferences of the remaining individual.


The broader setting is largely your domain, A common, and sadly quite treacherous way of going about it.


and your interest in it directly affects the quality of the game (heck, it might even effect the quality of the game, or at least a large portion of it) Fortunately, it's generally a trivial matter for a group to create something that meet's everyone's preferences and holds everyone's interest. It's much harder for an individual to do that, especially if the individual has come to believe that their preferences matter more than those of the rest of the group.


If the preferences were about PC specifics, then there would be a case about the preferences not mattering that much. As for buy-in, not much more is needed than usual. The "usual" amount of buy-in I see in games is just barely enough, because the GM is just talking at the players, rather than involving them. The GM's rulings get challenged, the details of the campaign get forgotten, and people start wondering when the game is going to get to something they're actually interested in - which it never is because no one is working towards anyone else's interests.

So, if a GM starts by realizing that a specific idea they really like have might not interest a group, and is prepared to drop it and replace it with something else that they and the group is interested in (which is easier if the GM is interested in lots of things), then the kinds of questions asked in the original post become a lot easier to answer.

I'm NOT saying the GM shouldn't play a game they're interested in. I'm saying they shouldn't play a game the players aren't interested in. Big difference.

Yora
2015-01-16, 04:23 PM
I think Iron Age settings are a bit difficult, as a lot of the basic technologies of Antiquity already come around during this peroid. It's quite difficult to make a clear separation between Iron Age and Antiquity as far as fantasy worlds are concerned. I couldn't even really tell you what the differences are, other than Antiquity having written acounts of historic events, while the Iron Age didn't.
However, if you want to have a setting that is clearly pre-Roman, -Greek, and -Persian, than going with a late Bronze Age setting really goes a far way. In that period there's all kind of significant differences, particularly when it comes to weapons and armor, which is something that player characters will have a lot of direct interaction with.

This sounds very sand-boxy and like I have to heavily involve my players in adventure preparation.
It can, but doesn't have to. The Sword & Sorcery genre generally works along a kind of episodic format. With RPGs, there's a common tendency to run campaign in which every single day gets played out, starting from the day the PCs first pick up weapons for something other than training. That can be done either as a linear story campaign, or as a sandbox setting.
But in a campaign that is episodic in format, you can also begin each adventure with "some months (or even years) have passed". In the meantime, the characters have been doing all kinds of things, but those simply where not that exciting and entertaining that they were worth playing through them. Until the day they are riding down the road and meet this weird old guy carrying a small chest... This works very well in the Sword & Sorcery genre because the characters usually are not very deeply involved into the affairs of the rich and powerful. Sometimes they are (in some stories Conan was a king), but the adventures that are played are not about those things. A PC might be a powerful leader, but during the game sessions all those politics and administration doesn't get mentioned. Once the players have learned about the quest, the King PC simply shouts to his vizir "Take care of business while I am gone for a few days" and rides out the palace gate to whatever adventure the campaign is currently about. It can be just as fun as a campaign that covers the entire career of the PCs without any gaps or skips, but the players need to be on board with it and know how it's going to be from the start. For a game that is about establishing a power base and managing and growing your domian, the episodic format would probably not work at all.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 04:25 PM
Ah, I see. I wanted social status to be a big thing in my world, and I asked my players about agency being taken from them and it didn't really wet their whistle. So, i figured they would have to be noble and try to keep their family names clean in order to do stuff, so I would have some restrictions but not making them too limited. The example of Conan, above, is a good one. Social status is a big thing in his world - he himself seems to become king every now and then - but he is very much a free agent. Nobles would recognize the importance of free agents, even though they can also be a danger.


The quest ending their formal servitude to the city was also added to make it feel more like a personal quest instead of Superman saving the day. Maybe it just feels tacked on, though. As is, yes. It's hard to "make" something feel personal. Ask the players what would make a quest feel personal to their characters.


This sounds very sand-boxy and like I have to heavily involve my players in adventure preparation. It doesn't have to be that sand-boxy, but I do recommend involving your players in creating the setting as the game proceeds.

Knaight
2015-01-16, 04:54 PM
This sounds very sand-boxy and like I have to heavily involve my players in adventure preparation.
It doesn't necessarily have to be, though I generally recommend a more sandbox approach. This can easily be expressed through recurring NPCs, through NPCs that the PCs are connected to being prone to cut them loose after whatever business they are involved in, so on and so forth. To some extent, your idea of having the starting environment be the last duty to the city after which point the PCs become free agents is exactly this. Then are are some other traits worth noting. Fortunes tend to be gained and lost, particularly holdings and other things that tie the character down. The mace is a decent example of this, as an item actively trying to be lost, that's quite valuable in the mean time (and reasonably likely to come back, from the sounds of things). Secret cults are an extremely common trapping, which could easily be where the rakshasha get implemented, often as the object of worship of these, where the cultists themselves are human.


Which, individually, isn't very. But the players are a large subgroup within the group, and if that group has a preference then it should weigh heavily against the preferences of the remaining individual.

A common, and sadly quite treacherous way of going about it.

I haven't found it treacherous. I'm not saying that the GM should use a setting that the players dislike, just that it often works best for the group if the GM specifically makes sure that the setting is something they are interested in. Plus, as PC options are largely an area where players really matter, and the setting and PC options tie into each other in a big way, there's that obvious constraint. I've reliably found that this approach works. Everyone works out an agreeable setting and genre, with the GM having a leading role here. Then characters are made, with the players having a leading role here. Then play starts. Your description of the results for standard buy-in don't match anything I've ever seen. I've also found that it's often the odder ideas that the GM specifically likes that the players end up attached to as well. "Is everyone interested in a game where you are citizens of a jungle planet in the galactic backwater, up against the encroaching forces of Galactic Fruit" tends to be greeted with strong agreement, even if the GM is the only person at the table even all that familiar with United Fruit's actions in central and south america in the early and mid 1900's.

TheCountAlucard
2015-01-16, 05:17 PM
Luckily, quite a bit of the works of Robert E. Howard can be found on Project Gutenberg (http://gutenberg.net.au/); you can get your fill of Conan stories (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1303751h.html) for free online. :smallsmile:

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 05:22 PM
I haven't found it treacherous. I'm not saying that the GM should use a setting that the players dislike, just that it often works best for the group if the GM specifically makes sure that the setting is something they are interested in. Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you here. But if the GM has lots of things they're interested in, rather than one particular thing that they really want to run a specific way, then its easier to prioritize player interest while retaining GM interest.


Plus, as PC options are largely an area where players really matter, and the setting and PC options tie into each other in a big way, there's that obvious constraint. I don't follow, perhaps because I tend not to constrain character options.


Everyone works out an agreeable setting and genre, with the GM having a leading role here. Leading in the sense of "leading the discussion," yes. But not in the sense of their preferences carrying more weight.


Then characters are made, with the players having a leading role here. Yes, because their characters are all the players have. The setting is not, as I've often seen suggested, the equivalent of the GM's character, because there are many, many things a GM can do inside a given setting, and can freely pick and choose what matters during play. Players generally cannot do the same with their character options.


Then play starts. Where discussion about the setting hopefully continues.


Your description of the results for standard buy-in don't match anything I've ever seen. I find that hard to believe, so maybe you and I have different ideas of what it means for a GM to be challenged or for the players to forget details about the campaign.


I've also found that it's often the odder ideas that the GM specifically likes that the players end up attached to as well. "Is everyone interested in a game where you are citizens of a jungle planet in the galactic backwater, up against the encroaching forces of Galactic Fruit" tends to be greeted with strong agreement, even if the GM is the only person at the table even all that familiar with United Fruit's actions in central and south america in the early and mid 1900's. Great. A GM should run a game the players are attached to, for whatever reason they're attached to it.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 05:23 PM
Luckily, quite a bit of the works of Robert E. Howard can be found on Project Gutenberg (http://gutenberg.net.au/); you can get your fill of Conan stories (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1303751h.html) for free online. :smallsmile: Nice. Is there a way to get that in a format my Kindle app can use?

Arbane
2015-01-16, 06:47 PM
Fortunately, it's generally a trivial matter for a group to create something that meet's everyone's preferences and holds everyone's interest.

If that's actually true in your experience, I ENVY YOU. Most RPG groups I've seen can't even agree on pizza toppings.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 06:58 PM
If that's actually true in your experience, I ENVY YOU. Most RPG groups I've seen can't even agree on pizza toppings. There are far more options when creating a fantasy setting. If you say anchovies and I don't like anchovies, there's nothing I can do to make the pizza good but block the thing you said. But if you say elves and I don't like elves, I can add something I like to the idea of elves that makes it palatable to me, so you can have elves and I can also have something I like.

I feel like that's about how Dark Sun was created:
"Halflings!"
"Gah, I'm tired of halflings... but if they're cannibalistic halflings, I'm in!"

nrg89
2015-01-17, 06:00 AM
But in a campaign that is episodic in format, you can also begin each adventure with "some months (or even years) have passed". In the meantime, the characters have been doing all kinds of things, but those simply where not that exciting and entertaining that they were worth playing through them. Until the day they are riding down the road and meet this weird old guy carrying a small chest... This works very well in the Sword & Sorcery genre because the characters usually are not very deeply involved into the affairs of the rich and powerful. Sometimes they are (in some stories Conan was a king), but the adventures that are played are not about those things. A PC might be a powerful leader, but during the game sessions all those politics and administration doesn't get mentioned. Once the players have learned about the quest, the King PC simply shouts to his vizir "Take care of business while I am gone for a few days" and rides out the palace gate to whatever adventure the campaign is currently about. It can be just as fun as a campaign that covers the entire career of the PCs without any gaps or skips, but the players need to be on board with it and know how it's going to be from the start. For a game that is about establishing a power base and managing and growing your domian, the episodic format would probably not work at all. But there's still story arches over these episodes, right? Like a recurring villain or calamity (like a war)?


It doesn't necessarily have to be, though I generally recommend a more sandbox approach. This can easily be expressed through recurring NPCs, through NPCs that the PCs are connected to being prone to cut them loose after whatever business they are involved in, so on and so forth. I will ask you almost the exact same question as I asked Yora: is the allies the only NPCs recurring or are the villains recurring too, forming some sort of story arch?


Secret cults are an extremely common trapping, which could easily be where the rakshasha get implemented, often as the object of worship of these, where the cultists themselves are human. Arcane magic users need to make a deal with something super natural to get their powers. The rakshasa are the most easy to do this with so they often have a retinue of sorcerers and mercenaries around them, and some even control an entire city. I hadn't thought that far, but it seems like it would make sense for them to start secret cults in regions that are not that friendly towards rakshasa by offering some individuals power.


The example of Conan, above, is a good one. Social status is a big thing in his world - he himself seems to become king every now and then - but he is very much a free agent. Nobles would recognize the importance of free agents, even though they can also be a danger. What dangers do you see when my players are nobles? Will they feel pigeonholed or feel detached from the flavor of a harsh setting?


As is, yes. It's hard to "make" something feel personal. Ask the players what would make a quest feel personal to their characters. Well, half of the players are absolutely new to pen and paper RPGs. I guess I should have faith and trust that they still know what they want, but it's scary because I want them to walk away from the table reluctantly and with the motivation to clear their schedule for more gaming.

Yora
2015-01-17, 06:55 AM
You could do episodic adventures either complete free standing or losely connected, whichever way you like. Lots of older cartoon shows would be good examples. You don't have to watch every episode and you can watch them out of order. But you still have guys like Shredder or the Joker, who are familiar faces.
Alternatively, you could also do a continous storyline, but with no prepared plot. Once an adventure is completed, you start planning the next one. For example, you can have adventure #1 in which the PCs are rescuing a hostage from a bandit leader. That's all you have prepared. Depending on what the players do, he either dies, goes to prison, or escapes. And perhaps the hostage is rescued, killed, or taken away by the fleeing banit leader. Once the players have cleared the bandit camp and returned to their employer to inform him how it went, you start planning the next adventure. Maybe it's something complete different, but the adventure after that the villain has escaped from prison or has returned to get revenge for the death of all his men.

Or let the players decide. In a "true sandbox" you have a huge map with lots of places on it, and the players decide which one they want to go to. If the player feel like exploring a tomb, they might ask around with the local sages and get some leads on where they could find such a tomb. Or you can simply skip all that and just have the players tell you "We want to explore an old tomb" and then you prepare for them an adventure about an old tomb. You don't have to prepare 20 dungeons that can be explored and perhaps 4 of them are actually visited by the players. The whole running around on the world map trying to find something interesting to explore part can just be skipped and you go straight to the cool parts.
And I think that's one of the strong points of the Sword & Sorcery genre. Generally those stories don't concern themselves with the weeks of travel and small jobs of the adventurers life. They go straight to the point where the best stuff happens. Which leads to another thing: Generally, sword & sorcery heroes don't start out as weak nobodies who have to work their way up to the top. Those things also fall under the "not that interesting, so we don't mention it" category. This can be done in an RPG campaign either by making the common enemies very weak, or by having the PC already start pretty strong. Fighting kobolds, rats, and beetles isn't actually that cool or heroic even in a conventional campaign. It's a chore that needs to be done so the characters can become strong enough to get to the really cool stuff, like fighting ten ogres at once, and slaying giants and dragons. In a sword & sorcery themed campaign, you can easily skip all the small fries at the start and begin with PCs who are already quite the badasses. Think of movies like Indiana Jones, Predator, or James Bond. Those characters did start out as little nobodies, but those stories aren't nearly as cool as the stuff they do once they are professional badasses, so we go straight to the most exciting parts of their career.

I think we're kind of talking about two different things in this thread: Developing your setup into a full campaign, and explaining the inner workings of the sword & sorcery genre. We could help you with either, depending on what you want to do with your campaign. Young Iron Age nobles working their way up to become champions of their cities also would be a very exciting campaign setup, even though that would be a different genre.

Knaight
2015-01-17, 09:51 AM
I will ask you almost the exact same question as I asked Yora: is the allies the only NPCs recurring or are the villains recurring too, forming some sort of story arch?

There can easily be both. The thing is, in S&S, it's not uncommon for them to be the same people.

nrg89
2015-01-17, 11:52 AM
There can easily be both. The thing is, in S&S, it's not uncommon for them to be the same people.



I think we're kind of talking about two different things in this thread: Developing your setup into a full campaign, and explaining the inner workings of the sword & sorcery genre. We could help you with either, depending on what you want to do with your campaign. Young Iron Age nobles working their way up to become champions of their cities also would be a very exciting campaign setup, even though that would be a different genre. I tell you what; I think I'll go ahead and run the material I've prepared (my wife and employer would not be happy otherwise by the look of my schedule) and then ask them if they are interested in the mace at all, what they liked about the adventure, what they thought could be cut, let the players decide if they want to head out in the tribal wilderness, the sorcerer infested lands of the rakshasa, some other place or just stay right where they are and be better informed of wether or not they're actually invested in the story I had in mind or if I maybe should take on a more episodic approach. I have played in a very episodic campaign ... wow, almost 8 years ago in high school. Anyway, I think i can pull it off in that case, with some help from you guys.

So, in case they don't find the mace interesting and want to stay in this city where they are respected citizens, how should I go about preparing for the next game night?

Yora
2015-01-17, 12:07 PM
Ideally you would ask them what kind of adventure they want to go to next, and they tell you what they want. In practice my experience has always been that you never get any useful replies from them. :smallbiggrin: It's always "Oh, we go along with anything you want to set up for us".
If they believe you already have lots of plans with the mace, they are most likely to sit back and go along with whatever you throw at them. The default assumption is that the campaign has a long elaborate plot set up, and players don't want to cause any trouble by ruining all the stuff you have prepared.

What was your intention for coming up with the mace? It seems like it's some kind of database of old and outdated information. I am not quite what PCs would be doing with it.

nrg89
2015-01-17, 12:36 PM
What was your intention for coming up with the mace? It seems like it's some kind of database of old and outdated information. I am not quite what PCs would be doing with it. It was based around something I've noticed now that I'm married and have a much more complicated life with my wife; people tend to forget little details by themselves and it's much easier to remember stuff if you share them with someone. If I make plans with my wife I remember them much easier than if I do it myself or if I'm just told to do something. I just thought it was something many people could relate to and made a magic item around that fact (based around a talking mace in an old, Mesopotamian story).

So, my players like treasure hunting, and for that you need a map or at least some sort of idea of where the treasure is. The mace knows a lot about old places and artifacts, but not in a modern context of being lost or not, so it is kind of like a dated map in that way. Plus, it's a lot more fun to interact with than a map since it's still loyal to it's owner it won't help the players cross him unless it's owner's corruption is proven. This means the players could either confront it with the rakshasa's evil nature in some way, trick it somehow or any other creative way my players can come up with.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-17, 08:59 PM
What dangers do you see when my players are nobles? Will they feel pigeonholed or feel detached from the flavor of a harsh setting? It's not dangerous to make your players be nobles, it's just not really sword & sorcery. That said, nobles do tend to be restricted in what they can do and still be nobles. What if one of the characters is a barbarian? There can be noble barbarians, of course, but will he fit in with the "noble" society?


Well, half of the players are absolutely new to pen and paper RPGs. I guess I should have faith and trust that they still know what they want, but it's scary because I want them to walk away from the table reluctantly and with the motivation to clear their schedule for more gaming. That's a risk you're more exposed to if you don't give the players something they're very likely to be into. Don't talk to them about what they want out of the game necessarily. That's just going to get blank looks. Ask them leading questions about cool siutations they enjoy and what they enjoy about them. Talking about movies helps. Do they like Conan? Star Wars? Dune? Do they like noble heroes like the Seven Samurai, or heroes in spite of themselves like Indiana Jones?

nrg89
2015-01-18, 07:35 AM
It's not dangerous to make your players be nobles, it's just not really sword & sorcery. That said, nobles do tend to be restricted in what they can do and still be nobles. What if one of the characters is a barbarian? There can be noble barbarians, of course, but will he fit in with the "noble" society? Probably not. I think I'll have to talk more with my players about making them nobles, when I asked them I wasn't that clear about the way I interpret it (with some restrictions and a set of principles they're supposed to honor, most relevantly). It's some minor adjustments if they don't like it.


That's a risk you're more exposed to if you don't give the players something they're very likely to be into. Don't talk to them about what they want out of the game necessarily. That's just going to get blank looks. Ask them leading questions about cool siutations they enjoy and what they enjoy about them. Talking about movies helps. Do they like Conan? Star Wars? Dune? Do they like noble heroes like the Seven Samurai, or heroes in spite of themselves like Indiana Jones? I'm too much of an engineer not to make a system of questions about it.

I know they like Star Wars, so I'll ask them what character they like better; Luke (minus the whining) and Han since Han is much more in it for himself while Luke truly believes he's taking on the mantle of responsibility for the galaxy and continuation of the jedi (so, Han's story line is more pulpy while Luke's more epic).

I also know they're big video game geeks. I think I'll ask them if they like Mass Effect or Borderlands better (two of their favorite games) when it comes to story since one is much more light hearted than the other, and one has higher stakes in it's story than the other. I know they like Indiana Jones, but a lot of people do. I know they've both read Narnia, which I have too, and I feel like I've outgrown it just like LOTR. I feel absolutely no suspense or investment in the characters because they're overshadowed by the stakes in their goals, my main problem with high fantasy. But they love LOTR, so if this is coupled with a love of Narnia I think that's two solid votes on high fantasy from them.

One of my more seasoned players like the Conan books (I haven't read them but they do sound interesting), and Sherlock Holmes for that matter (which I've read a little of and they're pretty pulpy), so he feels more like a pulp guy. Me and the other seasoned guy has always liked pulp stuff (Indiana Jones, the Rocketeer and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics for example) and he has been rolling his eyes every time there's an epic, high fantasy quest coming their way (and he has even had a lot of interest not going over level 6). The two of them thought that a campaign about stopping a war became pretty boring quickly (it could just be that I made the old GM mistake of falling in love with my clever exposition) in contrast to treasure hunting, trap disarmament and beating bad guys to the loot which they did in another campaign. So, based on this I've jumped to the conclusion that they want a more pulpy game.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-18, 04:34 PM
I'm too much of an engineer not to make a system of questions about it.

I know they like Star Wars, so I'll ask them what character they like better; Luke (minus the whining) and Han since Han is much more in it for himself while Luke truly believes he's taking on the mantle of responsibility for the galaxy and continuation of the jedi (so, Han's story line is more pulpy while Luke's more epic).

I also know they're big video game geeks. I think I'll ask them if they like Mass Effect or Borderlands better (two of their favorite games) when it comes to story since one is much more light hearted than the other, and one has higher stakes in it's story than the other. I know they like Indiana Jones, but a lot of people do. I know they've both read Narnia, which I have too, and I feel like I've outgrown it just like LOTR. I feel absolutely no suspense or investment in the characters because they're overshadowed by the stakes in their goals, my main problem with high fantasy. But they love LOTR, so if this is coupled with a love of Narnia I think that's two solid votes on high fantasy from them.

One of my more seasoned players like the Conan books (I haven't read them but they do sound interesting), and Sherlock Holmes for that matter (which I've read a little of and they're pretty pulpy), so he feels more like a pulp guy. Me and the other seasoned guy has always liked pulp stuff (Indiana Jones, the Rocketeer and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics for example) and he has been rolling his eyes every time there's an epic, high fantasy quest coming their way (and he has even had a lot of interest not going over level 6). The two of them thought that a campaign about stopping a war became pretty boring quickly (it could just be that I made the old GM mistake of falling in love with my clever exposition) in contrast to treasure hunting, trap disarmament and beating bad guys to the loot which they did in another campaign. So, based on this I've jumped to the conclusion that they want a more pulpy game. Fine, make a system of questions about it, but don't ask them which of a pair they like better and assume that tells you the whole story, based on your belief of why someone would like a particular character or story better. They might not like Han for the pulp and Luke for the epicness, but for Han the one-liners and Luke for the sword that cuts through. Follow up and ask WHY they like what they like. Engineers are good at finding root causes.