Starting my first DM campaign.

[Nick_mi]

Unlike most first dms, I am not taking it easy. I am going balls to the wall and planning a possible year+ long campaign. I am slightly basing my game off of tales of symphonia using thier map, and thier general storyline up to the point where they go to the second world.

The second world I feel I'll have enough experiance DMing by then and I can migrate it away from the story line. What I am looking for now is a couple of things.

A: where can I find premade adventures. I want to always have a couple of adventures on hand so they can play freely and I'm not linear.

B: If you played the game, any ideas on what monsters I should run for bosses. I'm not following the game exactly, but if I cna hit a nice little flavor niche, why not.

One of my ideas is definitely going to be fun where I plan on having each member slowly fall for a trap and as each one individually falls I will hand them a piece of folded up paper explaining that they died and can not speak again until I say so, and do this one by one to each of my players untill there is only one. Then I will have the last person start to fight the boss and right as he gets a critical threat when he is at about 10 hp, a NPC will arive in the nick of time to stop the critical hit, and reveal that he has saved all of the previous party members presumed dead. I really can't wait to play that out.

Anywhoizzle, thanks for reading my ramble and helping if possible :)

[MarkusWolfe]

First, stop here and read most of, if not all of, the articles.

As for bosses.....ramped up versions of the monsters you've been fighting are usually ok.

[Yora]

Important question: Which system?

[Nick_mi]

Good point. 3.5

[Kylarra]

One of my ideas is definitely going to be fun where I plan on having each member slowly fall for a trap and as each one individually falls I will hand them a piece of folded up paper explaining that they died and can not speak again until I say so, and do this one by one to each of my players untill there is only one. Then I will have the last person start to fight the boss and right as he gets a critical threat when he is at about 10 hp, a NPC will arive in the nick of time to stop the critical hit, and reveal that he has saved all of the previous party members presumed dead. I really can't wait to play that out.

Fun for you maybe, it doesn't seem fun to the players and pre-planning a "near TPK only to be saved by a super NPC" is generally considered poor DMing and rather annoying from the player's PoV.

[derfenrirwolv]

One of my ideas is definitely going to be fun where I plan on having each member slowly fall for a trap and as each one individually falls I will hand them a piece of folded up paper explaining that they died and can not speak again until I say so, and do this one by one to each of my players untill there is only one. Then I will have the last person start to fight the boss and right as he gets a critical threat when he is at about 10 hp, a NPC will arive in the nick of time to stop the critical hit, and reveal that he has saved all of the previous party members presumed dead. I really can't wait to play that out.

ok, first off, periods. This sentence isn't run on so much as doing a marathon.

Secondly *takes out rolled up newspaper* no. Bad dm. *thwack* No mountain dew for you. This is

railroading (glueing the plot to a particular direction no matter what) ,

deliberately taking the PLAYERS out of the action for a while (at least half an hour with nothing to do)

Preventing a players goals by DM fiat (your uber npc automatically gets to stop a critical hit in progress.. there's no rule for doing that in 3.5)

The uber DMNPC ... he's cool because i'm the dm and i say he is. Its AWSOME because you PC schmucks have to follow the rules and have bad things happen when dice don't go well but NOTHING ever bad happens to him because the dm says so.. isn't that AWSOME!.

All of which are cardinal sins of dming. Role playing is supposed to be interactive: its a collaborative story between you and the players. Even if you run the most hack and slash game every to grace a battle mat the story of HOW the adventurers killed the things with pointy teeth and green skin is partially in the hands of the players: did they rush in hacking slashing and blasting or did they pull back and pick the goblinoids off one by one? If you deny the players that you're not interacting with them, you're telling them a story where they are spectators, NOT participants.

[Nick_mi]

Ok let me start out by saying the NPC won't be super awesome, he is just going to be a traitor who turns and thus is able to save people since he knows how the traps work. They will all be going into traps which will have near impossible roles, and the idea here is to build up suspense. To make them think that they have died, that they screwed up. As more and more players disappear, the other plays should be getting more on edge and more scared for his own well being. In the end I want them feeling upset and demoralized so when they find out that months of play was not flushed down the tubes, the reward when they defeat the boss after such an encounter will be that much more satisfactory.

I see what you're saying, and they're great points and maybe I should tweak a couple of things, you make a valid point on the half hour, I need to keep them involved some how or make it go quicker then that, but overall I feel that it is a good idea that will really roller coaster their emotions.

As far as railroading goes, these guys have not had the best of DMs. They're used to being cattled and my campaign is going to be very very open. Other then they eventually have to get to certain stage points, unless they really want to go against it and change it(which I'd allow annoyingly), they can do whatever they want which is why I am trying to get multiple encounter ideas set up so I can whip stuff up in minimal time.

[Tyndmyr]

ok, first off, periods. This sentence isn't run on so much as doing a marathon.

Secondly *takes out rolled up newspaper* no. Bad dm. *thwack* No mountain dew for you.

This man is right. Listen to him.

This is

railroading (glueing the plot to a particular direction no matter what) ,

deliberately taking the PLAYERS out of the action for a while (at least half an hour with nothing to do)

This is a biggie. The primary purpose of the DM is to make the adventure fun for the players. It's hardly the only thing you want from an adventure, but if it ain't fun, it ain't worth playing. And people not participating will generally lead to boredom, or being engaged in something other than the game.

Preventing a players goals by DM fiat (your uber npc automatically gets to stop a critical hit in progress.. there's no rule for doing that in 3.5)

The uber DMNPC ... he's cool because i'm the dm and i say he is. Its AWSOME because you PC schmucks have to follow the rules and have bad things happen when dice don't go well but NOTHING ever bad happens to him because the dm says so.. isn't that AWSOME!.

Awesomeness cannot be told to the players. It must be shown. The tale of the guy who breaks all the rules to do whatever he wants is not awesome. Tales of challenges overcome despite great difficulty are a lot more awesome. Fortunately, you have a perfect setup in D&D for this...the PCs. Thus, your tale will be best if it centers on them.

Consider NPCs, and how they will interact with your party. It's ok to have some of them be more powerful than the party, sure...but only if it's fitting for in-game reasons. Yes, the king is powerful...not usually in his own right, but through temporal wealth and control. Build the world to feel complete and real, and the awesomeness will follow.

But hey, you're new. These are very common things that every DM needs to learn. So, don't feel bad about not knowing em yet. By asking here, you saved the trouble of finding out the hard way.

Im afraid Im not familiar with the campaign setting you mentioned, could you describe it a bit? Also, what level do you intend to start at? If new, level 1 might be easiest, but modules are typically written with a given level range in mind. Once we know what'll fit best, we can give you some pointers for resources.

[Nick_mi]

There will be 3-4 players, and 1 npc all starting at level 1. The idea is the NPC must set out on a quest to save the world. They being their best friends will go along with her.(I don't see it as railroading if the other alternative is "you don't go with her. You sit around for a year. The world ends."

They have to go place to place to get more information, eventually NPC turns into an angel and goes to save the world, only to find out that she must be sacrificed, and they have been lied to by everyone about the whole quest, and that there is a parallel world attached to theirs. Now this is where it really starts branching out as from here they can literally go ANY route.

Up to this point they kind of have pre-planned destinations that they have to get to eventually, but the world is not in imminent danger so they can go whenever they want at their leisure.

It might help a bit if you read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_Symphonia

I plan on following the story kinda similiarily up to the split world parts. I am doing this even though I think it could be bad that I am mirroring a game simply because

A: my friends have not had good DMs so I think I can afford to be a bit linear/one track and still have them enjoy themselves

B: Once I get this half out of the way I really feel I can start to flourish in the second half and give them a campaign the likes of which they've never played before.

Keep in mind that the NPC is the only character that will actually be similiar to the game. Other then that, they're not playing in that world, they will not deal with NPCs from that game, etc. It's really only the story idea and the map I'm using.

[Tyndmyr]

Ok let me start out by saying the NPC won't be super awesome, he is just going to be a traitor who turns and thus is able to save people since he knows how the traps work.

Traitors are...very overdone. They can be done well, but it should occur only when an NPC has gotten into a situation where he really has to turn traitor. Traitors should be rare, and have good motives for doing so.

They will all be going into traps which will have near impossible roles, and the idea here is to build up suspense. To make them think that they have died, that they screwed up.

This isn't suspense, unfortunately. Suspense is the fear of the unknown...of what's coming. If players think they're dead, there's no suspense.

And designing traps to have "near impossible rolls" to ensure plot event a happens is generally considered bad form. You might want to have a plan for what happens if the party is ever captured, sure...but try to avoid forcing the party to be stuck into a specific situation, just so you can use a certain setup.

As more and more players disappear, the other plays should be getting more on edge and more scared for his own well being. In the end I want them feeling upset and demoralized so when they find out that months of play was not flushed down the tubes, the reward when they defeat the boss after such an encounter will be that much more satisfactory.

This is a poor method of creating suspense. I suggest reading Heroes of Horror if you want a suspenseful game.

The other players are likely to either leave, or simply assume they are screwed. Either is quite counterproductive.

There is no reward for seeing an Npc save you all, then kill the boss for you. Reward is felt for your acheivements. Watching others acheive things is much less rewarding.

On the flip side, having multiple adventures ready to go IS a good idea, it allows you much more flexibility.

[Nick_mi]

I feel it will be suspensfull for those still not having been trapped. And while not everyone will get the suspense feeling that the last person is getting, they will get thiers in other instances. They know I won't play favorites, and sometimes you don't get to be shotgun, but there are times when you will get it.

Also, the NPC won't even be partaking in the fight, and it will still be a diffacult battle.

The traitor is more like a double agent. And he is betraying the enemies, not me.

I also feel that the giving them each a piece of paper as they die with directions on it to not spoil the surprise for those still not trapped will prevent them from just leaving, or knowing thier screwed completely, but they'll still be wondering, still hoping that the people aren't trapped can somehow save them.

[Tyndmyr]

There will be 3-4 players, and 1 npc all starting at level 1. The idea is the NPC must set out on a quest to save the world. They being their best friends will go along with her.(I don't see it as railroading if the other alternative is "you don't go with her. You sit around for a year. The world ends."

What makes something railroading is not how well you justify it. It's the act of denying players choices. Therefore, it is railroading. I would suggest you use a somewhat more subtle method of getting the adventure started. First off, figure out why their characters are all together, and why they would work together. This really depends a lot on the characters involved.

Then, set up a situation where they discover something unusual, or a strange event happens that brings them together, or threatens things they hold dear. They almost certainly shouldn't learn the whole scope of the plot quite this early.

I also advise against forcing them to follow an NPC. You might lure them with curiosity and mystery, sure. You might give them other paths to investigate whatever the issue is. But making an NPC the main character and determiner of where they go and what they do, while coming with them, is generally not a good idea.

[Nick_mi]

Well she is thier childhood friend and they're charged with being her bodyguards, so they will actually be leading because she needs to be with her bodyguards for she knows that she can not do this quest on her own.

They know about the quest for saving the world because it is something taught to them in school. Everyone on the planet knows about it. What they won't know about is the lies, they will only know what is taught to them and that is far from the truth. They band together at first because they are friends and they clearly want to live. Then what will really bind them is when they come to the end of the original journey and find out everything they learned was lies and they can either try to right those wrongs, leave it be, join in with the crowd, or do whatever they wish.

[Comet]

I'm going to go a bit against the grain here and say that a slight amount of railroading is not necessarily a bad thing. If it leads into a cool story, I think the players will gladly play along even if your game isn't a sandbox like Grand Theft Auto. This depends on the players, of course.

The setup from Tales of Symphonia would, in my opinion, work very well. It's way better than "you're a bunch of adventurers who have decided to work together and are now sitting in a bar listening to an old man tell them about their next mission".

The NPC is the Chosen One. The PCs are her best friends. They have to go on an adventure together, to protect the Chosen One and save the world. Bam, you have background, motivation and cohesion in one swell swoop. I'd gladly play in a game like that.

The part about an NPC saving the PCs from danger is a bit trickier, but not quite as taboo as some would have you think. Sure, the players will be quite confused at first, but when the situation is resolved and you let them have their own moment in the spotlight after being rescued, I think they won't hold any grudges against you.

The NPC that rescues them should get plenty of characterization, though. He should become very familiar to the PCs during the course of the game, without stealing the spotlight. And, of course, it could be pretty cool to let the party defeat their former mysterious helper at some point. That way his strength wouldn't just be something you pulled out of your sleeve, but a clear indicator to measure the strength of the player characters themselves.

It's important to remember that the NPC should, ultimately, interact with the PCs in a meaningful way and not just be awesome for their own sake. That way, as long as your campaign isn't cut short for some reason, the players will eventually appreciate them and use those NPCs to motivate and measure their own accomplishments.

Okay, that's all I have for now. Quite a wall of text, I know, but I sorta got carried away. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with your ideas. They just require a rather long span of time to play out properly, so there's always the risk of the campaign ending before it's time for outside reasons. Let's just hope it won't.

[Nick_mi]

Wow, you pretty much got everything exactly how I had it planned. Yeah I expect this go on for over a year and I'm making my players aware of that intention from the start. I feel that's pretty monumental task for someone who has never DMed before and has only played this summer, but hey, I want what I want, and I don't want to start off small. So if I could get some ideas or just premade encounters that I could mod in to save me time and give my players additional options that would be awesome.

Also, wall of texts are fine as long as they are good walls of text. :P

[derfenrirwolv]

The tricky thing with reveals (like that someone is a traitor in a role playing game) or secret worlds, or that the players have been lied to about the nature of the world is that *unless you hint at it* it comes across as a complete butpull. If you hint at it and don't railroad you always have the possibility of the players figuring it out. Its almost a law of DMing that if the players need to figure something out they won't and if something is supposed to be a secret they'll figure it out like a first round win in clue.

As the DM you are the only source for what exists in a campaign world. Telling *your players* that this is how something is , and then latter telling them "HA! I was lying to you the whole time its really like this" can come accross as arrogant and make the players feel stupid. Its not like the real world where someone can say "Thats not how it works, radio waves don't work underwater, so the criminal was lying!" because as the DM you've made all the physics of the world. The suspension of disbelief neccesary to live in a fantasy world and the mistakes any GM will make means that players looking at discrepancies will (rightfully) chalk them up to error on your part.

There's a lot of ways around this, its hard to say without knowing more about your campaign, but it can be something as simple as the lair of a cult having a tapestry on the wall that shows how the universe really is.

For the traitor have him sitting at an in idly demonstrating slight of hand tricks. When you get to the dungeon he decides to "Randomly" go left or right using "random" coin tosses that he's rigging to go the direction he wants to go. Opposed spot or slight of hand checks might reveal what he's doing.

For your first campaign i would heavily advise NOT trying to be epic. Don't worry about multiple worlds or saving the universe or trotting the multiverse. Just work on the basics of mechanics, story, structure and planning. You can always go epic later if the campaign kicks off.

A few well done detailed towns, villiages, local history and countries will add a LOT more to a campaign than a vast and blury scope of a multiverse.

[Nick_mi]

Ok, yeah I hear you. The worlds are like a teeter-totter. If one world is flourishing, the other world is not. The quest is going to make the first world(home of our PCs) flourish, and the otherworld will start to go down. The otherworld since it is flourishing has a far greater technology(at least that's my story for now, it could change) and they have sent an assassin to kill the main character. However, the assassin is not evil is in a catch 22. Kill innocent people who are inadvertently trying to make her world worse off, or kill these people and forgo thier world so hers can remain flourishing. Depending on how the PCs act they can either make a friend or foe, gather valueable information or remain ignorant. I will give them chances, but if they don't grasp them, well then that's thier fault =/

Also, I will only be DMing about 1 or 2 sessions and then I will have a school year(with maybe 1-4 sessions through out the school year) to plan.

Also, to put things into scope of how my players are. They still don't know about Blade Magic. I discovered it and they're amazed by it and confused, but I intend on showing it to them. They also think improved toughness is an amazing feat, and generally "when in doubt, take improved toughness". So yeah :)

[Balain]

The idea of the NPC is their friend and the chosen one is a good start to the game.

Have them all be trapped and an NPC come and save them is called deus ex machina. Normally a bad idea for an RPG unless used very carefully.

The better idea for the Deus Ex Machina is if all but one of the PC get trapped because they fail their checks, than someone comes and saves them. After the PCs try to help those trapped but again fail.

Here's an example from a past game I was the player.

Spoiler

Show

We started at level 1 in a pretty small town but had everything we needed for awhile. By about level 5 we were still in the small town, biggest town was a long way off. We were off to find the source of different orc trips working together. After a big fight with lots and lots of orcs I died as well as one other pc. The others did manage to run of the remaining orcs though. When we get back to town to our surprise the cleric we talked to before is actually high enough level to resurect us. That was super good for us. The Cleric of course was originally not a high enough level.

We head out again and we walk into an ambush. I critical hit with a bow against me and I'm dead in one hit. Well below 0 HP. Rest of the party tries to save me but no luck. Back to the cleric after the party does what they can.

Out again adventuring and two of us die yet again. Back to cleric after the rest of the party does what it can. Once back the cleric informs us that she was called back to the big city for new orders from her church. Sh will be leaving in 2 days. So if we die after 2 days we're out of luck.

So good Deus Ex Machina. We tried and tried to do it ourselves when we couldn't the NPC saves us. and saves us a couple more times. Then heads off so we know we're SOL from now on.

[valadil]

In the end I want them feeling upset and demoralized so when they find out that months of play was not flushed down the tubes, the reward when they defeat the boss after such an encounter will be that much more satisfactory.

This can be effective but it's also dangerous. Some players won't like that they spent 2 hours miserable only to be told they won in the last 15 minutes of the session. You're running a risk every time you demoralize not just the characters but the players as well.

Here's an example of a time I did something similar to bad effect. I put the players in an adventurers tournament. They got to the last round and a rival group cheated to steal the win. They didn't win by fiat, they simply knew what the last part of the tournament would be and planned accordingly while the PCs entered it blind.

What I thought was happening was that I'd be introducing some new characters to use as villains. I like villains that the players hate on a personal level. This seemed like a good way to introduce them. The story of being cheated and getting revenge seemed like a reasonable one to include.

But it bombed badly.

Here's the thing. The players were emotionally invested in winning the tournament. Or in legitimately coming in second. They really enjoyed the challenges I put out in the tourney and were psyched to play it. By putting that other plot into it, I took the tourney away from them. I didn't just make them lose, I told them they can't have it at all. They were so disappointed they didn't want to keep playing. Yes, they'd eventually get revenge in game but at that very moment I was a jerk who took their entertainment away. Getting revenge would mean playing with me for several more hours. Why would they want to do such a thing?

In the end they stuck it out. They killed the leader of the other party about 15 minutes later while his allies fled. Do they remember the awesome vengeance I had written for them? No. They remember the game grinding to a halt because I cheated them. For all intents and purposes, they were done playing when the cheat took place. I may have run some other stuff afterward that I thought justified the cheating, but they weren't interested in being receptive to it at the time.

That said, there's a little more to it than that. I think that in another context this story could have worked. What was wrong with this context?

First of all, this is a group who likes to kick in the door and beat up monsters. I've never seen them kill off a PC. I'd experimented with putting them on the losing side of plot before (because I agree that it makes for a stronger win), but never so drastically. Long story short they like winning and weren't prepared for anything else.

The other problem was with how the game was run. This was part of a rotating GM campaign where each GM had 2-4 sessions to tell a story before the characters leveled and moved on to the next GM. The cheat happened during session 3. Because of this structure it is only natural that the players assumed that the tournament was the extend of my story. Maybe it was their bad for assuming things about the story I was trying to tell based on the context of how we were running the game. Maybe not. But it was definitely my bad for failing to recognize that how we were running the game could restrict the story I could tell. Running a 10 session game that starts with a tournament and turns into a revenge plot at session 3 is reasonable. Running a 3 session game that does the same thing is not. It's a bait and switch. Even if you switch to something cool, you're still taking away something that the players are emotionally invested in.

The point I'm trying to make with these two last paragraphs is that when you're dealing with a plot that crushes the players before they win, even if its good and well thought out it might not work in any context. I'm very experience with this type of plot and my example was ruined by a combination of the type of gamers I was playing with and the length of story they thought I was running. You are a new GM. Even if you're a decent writer, how well can you judge your players? Do they expect to win? Or will they find it condescending if you hand them free wins? (There's actually some very good info in the beginning of the 4e DMG about types of players and what they expect. I suggest you read it even if you aren't playing 4e.) What are their expectations for the game? Will they sit out patiently while waiting for the cool stuff to happen or will they get frustrated and give up before then, as my players did? I still say my plot could have worked in a longer game and would have worked with less needy players. But without the ability to analyze your players or the other parameters going into your game, I don't think you'll be able to make a good judgment about how they'll deal with a storyline like the one you proposed.

[Tyndmyr]

That is probably the best advice found in 4th Ed. Knowing your players is critical.

BTW, what edition are you playing?

[Nick_mi]

I'm playing in 3.5 and I expect my players to be fine with it. Here is the thing with my players. They're homebased guys. They don't play in college with new people, they don't go online and look anything up. They get what they have and they use it. They also introduced me to magic the gathering a year and half back. They were absolutely horrible at the game because they never put time and research into it, where areas I exploded and tried(trying) to go pro. They see I have that same tenacity with D&D and they are expecting me to give them the best campaign they've ever had, and I intend to deliver. These guys have never been pushed. No one has ever known how to push them. They are your standard cookie cutter players, they never use a whip dagger, they never use sunder, or trip, very rarely will they bullrush.

Most of my friends when they DM won't even allow magic users because no one ever pushed them hard enough to learn how to actually use them effectively. They look up to me and they expect me to do great things, so I really don't see my friends wanting to quit even if my plan backfires as they know I am putting far too much effort in this campaign for it not to deliver, even if there are minor set backs.

[valadil]

They look up to me and they expect me to do great things, so I really don't see my friends wanting to quit even if my plan backfires as they know I am putting far too much effort in this campaign for it not to deliver, even if there are minor set backs.

The point of my story wasn't to show you that your friends will ditch if you disappoint them. It was that the story you try to tell may not have the desired effect and that as a new GM you can't predict how they'll react to that. I'll give you some benefit of the doubt that these are your friends and you have some clue as to what they like, but don't expect that that's enough to make the game fun.

Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't run a plot that disappoints before it delivers. But if you do, start out small to test the waters. If they're arresting members of a thieves guild, see how they react to catching the ringleader but letting some minor thugs slip away. Is that good enough or is it a defeat? How they react to that will tell you how they'll handle a bigger loss.

A dramatic entrance for an NPC is also dangerous. The problem with what you outlined is that it takes the spotlight away from the PCs. LotR was a great series (feel free to sub in your own series of choice, this is just an example and I'm not prepared to argue for any particular series at the moment). But if you were playing as Merry, Pippin, and Farmer Maggot you'd be bored. The NPCs are all cooler than you and constantly reminding you of that. People playing D&D want their characters to be awesome. Putting them next to an NPC who gets a grand entrance like you described makes the PCs less awesome by comparison. What you expect to be a dramatic moment is going to end up depressing your players.

[Nick_mi]

I definately hear you on that. I don't think I'll have NPCs other then the favored soul travel with a party for long, and evnetually they will be up to par with any of the npcs as a team.

But I hear you. I was just playing in a campaign rocking face with 2 characters. One of which is a correctly built barbarian, who multiclassed into crusader(fit the storyline actually) and one of the most powerfull characters my friends ever seen, and then he goes and brings in a level 10 assassin to travel with us. I personally hate overpowered NPCs, so I have no intentions of doing it to my players.

[Umael]

@ valadil:

You know, given what you know now, I wonder if there was a way for you to have the same thing happen, but change how it happened so as not to cheese off the players.

I say this because the idea sounds good, valid. You have a lengthy contest, the PCs are winning, the players are excited... and then the villains come and steal their win from them.

I am mostly positive that, knowing your players, you could divert the player's excitment in the contest into appropriate dramatic rage against the villains in the game rather than having it transform into disappointment over the game itself. The question is - how?

[Tyndmyr]

An immediate chance for retribution, instead of a postponed one would probably be cathartic. A lot of players LOVE to solve problems with immediate violence.

[valadil]

@ valadil:

You know, given what you know now, I wonder if there was a way for you to have the same thing happen, but change how it happened so as not to cheese off the players.

I say this because the idea sounds good, valid. You have a lengthy contest, the PCs are winning, the players are excited... and then the villains come and steal their win from them.

I am mostly positive that, knowing your players, you could divert the player's excitment in the contest into appropriate dramatic rage against the villains in the game rather than having it transform into disappointment over the game itself. The question is - how?

TBH, of all the things I've done wrong as a GM this is the one I spent the most time thinking about.

I think the biggest mistake was running it in what the other PCs assumed was a 2-4 session minigame. That aside I honestly think it could have worked. But running it in that context gave them the expectation that the plot would conclude itself by the time I was done. They hadn't considered the possibility that I'd leave the group with a team of villains the next GM could use.

Were I to run it in a short span again I'd run the contest itself more quickly. Give them less time to get invested in it. I'd probably skip the preliminary combat entirely, explaining how seasoned adventurers have no issue defeating all manner of trolls and goblins, splitting arrows, or casting spells. Just skip to the semi finals. I could probably run all that in a single session, so that less has been established when I decide to switch things up.

A riskier option would be letting them find out the other team is cheating ahead of time. The danger there is that I'd be tempted to railroad so that the other team still gets to compete. The plot is blown apart (or into something different at any rate) if the cheaters are eliminated before the PCs get to face them. Maybe the cheaters find a way to interfere even after they've been disqualified, costing the PCs the victory? At this point I might as well give up writing D&D and start writing for WWE :-P

An immediate chance for retribution, instead of a postponed one would probably be cathartic. A lot of players LOVE to solve problems with immediate violence.

They got to kill off one of the NPCs. I thought that would be enough. Maybe if I let them kill all the cheaters... but then I wouldn't have just built up a team of villains for them to hate.

[Kylarra]

An immediate chance for retribution, instead of a postponed one would probably be cathartic. A lot of players LOVE to solve problems with immediate violence.

A lot of players LOVE to solve anything that might potentially be a problem with immediate violence.

[Umael]

A lot of players LOVE to solve anything that might potentially be a problem with immediate violence.

*sigh*

Not my group.

They tend to be bloodless diplomats.

I mean, is it too much to ask for a little sudden, horrible violence?

[kyoryu]

Fun for you maybe, it doesn't seem fun to the players and pre-planning a "near TPK only to be saved by a super NPC" is generally considered poor DMing and rather annoying from the player's PoV.

I agree with this 100%.

Always remember that it's the players' story, not yours.

There's a saying in computer game development that's attributed to Sid Meier - "There's three types of games - games where the computer is having the fun, games where the designer is having the fun, and games where the player is having the fun."

Good games are the third type.

[Nick_mi]

But different people like different things and I'm pretty sure my group would. Also still looking for help in the form of links to a couple of encounters/dungeons. =/