PDA

View Full Version : Your Big Bad is in another castle



Yora
2021-03-04, 05:38 PM
I got an idea for a campaign in which the pitch is "You have ganged together because you all have sworn to find and kill the Evil Sorcerer."
The PCs only know his name, and some of them his face, but none of them know where he is, what he's doing, and who he really is.

I think that's a great setup for a campaign that is very open and unscripted, in which the players can take any path they want if they think it will help them get to their ultimate goal, and success and failure is always up to them because they can always go searching for someone else who knows the information they need to make progress with their search.

Now one option is of course to set everything up from the start, with all the Evil Sorcerer's castles and strongholds placed on the worldmap, and his lieutenants and minions assigned to various places. With the people who can help the players' in their quest or get in their way having their homes where the players might find them or miss them.
But with this setup you could also assign the critical pieces of information and the important henchmen to specific locations as you go. If for some reason the players don't visit the merchant who can tell them that he had a magic amulet stolen by one of the villain's henchmen years ago and that is now protecting the evil sorcerer, then the same information can be simply given to pretty much any other NPC the players might come across in the future. But I am feeling a bit concerned that this approach would be somewhat disingenious given that the promise to the players is that they are driving the development of the campaign story.

What are your thoughts on that?

Anxe
2021-03-04, 05:42 PM
Isn't that basically how Dungeon World works? It's definitely a setting that works for some players. You just have to have different expectations for how the meta-game functions.

Batcathat
2021-03-04, 05:45 PM
But I am feeling a bit concerned that this approach would be somewhat disingenious given that the promise to the players is that they are driving the development of the campaign story.

Yes, if I was one of the players, I wouldn't really like that. As a GM, my philosophy is that I get to create the world and the situation, but I don't get to switch things around afterwards without in-universe justification and I prefer the same when I'm a player. Feels fairer and more honest.

NigelWalmsley
2021-03-04, 06:45 PM
Actively moving information around is something you have to do very carefully, because it pisses people off if you get found out. Better, I think, to simply put the information in multiple places to begin with, or make the information non-critical to the resolution of the plot. The one-off merchant shouldn't have some secret the plot needs to advance. Instead, he should have a plot hook that gives the PCs a specific non-critical advantage in the final fight. Maybe if the PCs find him, they learn the pass-phrase that bypasses the arcane sigils defending the BBEG's secret lair. But if they instead find the exiled nobleman, they learn about the control room where the BBEG's war golems can be deactivated. That way, whatever path the PCs follow results in a satisfyingly unique resolution.

Quertus
2021-03-05, 07:14 AM
Design philosophies:

Rule of Three - critical information exists in at least 3 places / forms, so that there is no "single point of failure".

Realism - critical information exists where it exists. A party of Playground Determinator players could still fail if they don't happen to choose door #42.

Hard Mode - the needed information exists nowhere. The party must build the tools to deduce it for themselves; otherwise, they fail.

Illusionism - the information exists wherever the party goes; it's "party-seeking information".

Lol - it doesn't matter where the information is planted, the party will know it via Divinations, Bardic Lore, Gather Information, and pulling pieces of the BBEG out of a spell component pouch and questioning the subsequent Simulacrum / Ice Assassin.

Composer99
2021-03-06, 12:50 PM
But I am feeling a bit concerned that this approach would be somewhat disingenious given that the promise to the players is that they are driving the development of the campaign story.

What are your thoughts on that?

It wouldn't bother me personally.

If you don't want fully commit to that level of illusion, but also don't want to go to the trouble of fully seeding the setting with information like who knows what and where they are - and I can't blame you, sounds like a lot of work - maybe use randomness for some of it? For instance, when the PCs go to a town, there's a chance they'll find useful NPCs and/or information.

Then, have a few fixed NPCs or info tidbits (or have some minor variance, such as "NPC X can be found in any of these three locations, depending on the time of year", or "NPC Y roves from town to town in this circuit") so that not everything is down to die rolls.

That way, the PCs drive the plot, because the amount of useful info/allies/stuff they get depends on how much effort they're willing to put into getting it, without you having to know where everything is in advance.

Calthropstu
2021-03-06, 03:14 PM
I take a much different approach.

In my game world, I have hundreds of plot devices set up. I have hundreds of npcs written up. I have the locations of major points of interest lined up. I give each area a general level, and give appropriate senses of danger. I present notable npcs, and if the pc's bite one a quest chain, I draw up the rest of the chain and, if applicable, tie it into the main story. This way, the pcs end up doing the kind of quests they want, fighting their preferred opponents and generally placing things in their hands all while preserving the overall story.

Yora
2021-03-06, 03:39 PM
Better, I think, to simply put the information in multiple places to begin with, or make the information non-critical to the resolution of the plot.
That seems like a pretty good approach.

Then, have a few fixed NPCs or info tidbits (or have some minor variance, such as "NPC X can be found in any of these three locations, depending on the time of year", or "NPC Y roves from town to town in this circuit") so that not everything is down to die rolls.

That way, the PCs drive the plot, because the amount of useful info/allies/stuff they get depends on how much effort they're willing to put into getting it, without you having to know where everything is in advance.
I think including hints about people with information in rumor tables for the relevant towns could be an interesting method. That could lead to the party returning back to places they've already been to to talk to someone they didn't meet at their first visit, but that might not actually be a bad thing for a quest that stretches over several years.

Dienekes
2021-03-06, 03:59 PM
I think this often has to do with the promises/foreshadowing you’re doing as a GM. If you are hinting at the players “the amulet that will identify the enemy is at location A.” They will go to location A expecting the amulet or amulet related adventures.

If you instead say “These places may have different plot points leading to the Sorcerer.” You’re a bit more lenient on yourself but also aren’t giving the players a lot of information for them to make the decision.

Personally, I’d think of it like this:

What pieces of information are the most important?
What pieces of information are helpful but not necessary?
What enemy information should be necessary for the players to know about?
What encounters can be pretty safely missed?

The helpful but unnecessary information gets attached to encounters that can safely be missed. The merchant? Easy to miss give him helpful but not strictly speaking necessary information.

The Sorcerer’s lieutenants, each of which has a stronghold? These should be given distinct personalities and information for the general player to easily grasp what is unique about them to make a decision who to go to first, or second, or avoid entirely. That stuff should be rock solid at game start, or at least as soon as the decision on where to go is brought up.

But what information they give away toward the plot? That can be a bit more fluid. Make it the big important stuff. But as long as it fits within the frame of the decision the players made its fine. Perhaps one bit of information calls for someone to betray the Sorcerer’s confidence. Maybe don’t make that piece of information tied to the lieutenant you’ve established as the Sorcerer’s best friend since kindergarten who will be loyal until death. But the other lieutenants? Fair game to make them give that betrayal detail. And in all honesty the best friend can also do the betrayal info reveal, but that requires a lot more writing to make it believable.

But anyway, my point being as long as your reveals don’t negate the decisions the players have made, it’s ok to give yourself a little wiggle room to smooth out the narrative and make the players not spin their wheels without information for weeks at a time until interest dies out.

jayem
2021-03-06, 04:18 PM
Have a bit of a mix.

Particularly with the big details skeletoned out. At the minimum you know at least where the Big Bad's castle is and what type of thing he is, and perhaps what 'theme' of information is blatant (e.g. in the North East he runs a Mafia operation, in the North West he has infiltrated the Aristocracy, in the South East he has no power yet, in the South West are Robber Gangs).

And then at the small scale improvise more, in the North East any village is going to have the Informant, the Resistor, the Bystander and the Tavern Keeper, Veteran and Merchant but which is which can vary. Any of those villages will have someone who can say 'we have to pay protection to Mr Dragon' (in fact almost any character will, although the follow up will be different), but there will be very few who know which roads the robber gangs are in the SW are operating on (but some will).

And again the three clue, if/when they go directly to the right merchant great they get a big clue, if they ask the right questions of the wrong merchant they might get a second hand version of the story, if on the other hand they only find out about the amulet in the now penultimate boss fight that is fine too.
[ETA]
You could do worse than having 8 bits of information, 4 tied individually to Evil Lieutenants, 4 (at least in theory) tied to the 1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th encounter.

Yora
2021-03-06, 04:23 PM
That's a good point. It only becomes railroading when the players' choices make no difference.

If the players decide they want to find out where the sorcerer's hidden castle is first, and then start looking for allies who might help them getting a chance to beat him, then they should feel that they are making progress on that front. In that regard, keeping things somewhat flexible might even increase their feeling of agency.

Having the players find clues in the order you want would probably be poor form. Making the players feel that they are steering the show would improve the game. It's not like modifying the information they can get from overcoming a challenge makes that challenge any easier or harder on them.

aglondier
2021-03-11, 01:58 AM
Remember to colour code your npcs. Black/red/dark is evil, white/blue/shiny is good, green/brown/grey is neutral. This is important, because part the bbeg himself defies colour coding. He wears blue/white. He looks after orphans, he donates to charity. He is the most militantly wholesome character in the campaign...and diabolically evil...but since he isn't human, why should he have human morality or viewpoint?