Congratulations! Now undo what you just did.

[Boci]

Really I'm just curious: how annoyed as PCs would you be if a story involved undoing what you had done in the previous story? Now I know this is a vague question, so here are some specific examples. Please tell me if you how you would feel if this happened to you in a game and anything else you feel is relevant.

Scenario 1:
1st story: The PCs must defeat a cult of evil people, hiding the soul gems of their most powerful members to prevent them from being simply brought back from the dead. There are four of them, and each are hidden in a different place: one on the peak of the highest mountain in the land, one is dropped into the middle of an ocean whose depth's are known to be crawling with powerful sea monsters, one is thrown through a portal to another plane known as the burning world and one is left in the centre of a dungeon with re-spawning monsters and traps.
2nd story: Oops, blight lord has showed up, and in order to get inside his fortress, you need a spell that requires the blood of his four high priests. Guess who they are? The re-spawning dungeon is easy enough, as you have already been through it. You may think the same of the mountain, but the blight lord's influence has corrupted the creatures there, twisting them into more powerful and evil versions of themselves. And you have no idea what it will take to get back the gems at the bottom of the ocean and on the other plane.

Scenario 2:
1st story: The human kingdoms are in a war against a an elvish warlord of a neighbouring elven nation who seeks to capture their land and unleash an epic ritual to being home the dragons that will then make him unbeatable. The PCs are commandoes in the army, using guerrilla tactics and taking out key figures behind enemy lines, as well as leading attacks on certain fortresses and maybe helping to defend one or two when the elves counter attack. Eventually the army gets to the capital and finally the PCs confront and defeat the warlord.
2nd story: Radical elements in the human empire decide its best to destroy the elven nation and reduce it to a vessel state full of work camps. The PCs are expected to fight against this, rescuing elves and taking them to safety, but also aiding the militia army of the elves against the professional army of the humans, driving them back and retaking several elven fortresses so the elves have a buffer against the humans. The PCs may even have to rescue some of the high ranking elves they helped capture if the weakened elven nation is going to have any chance of survival.

So, yeah. Thoughts?

[Lord Tyger]

For the first scenario- yeah that would be fairly annoying. Why did we go through all this to weaken the cult if the blight lord doesn't need them to return? Wouldn't we have done better to focus on preventing the return, and get ourselves out of this situation to start with.

For the... other first scenario. I don't think most players would go for that. If you set them up as fighting against the Elves, it's going to be tricky to get them to decide to switch sides without making the humans suddenly and hilariously evil, which will piss them off unless there's a good explanation for the sudden alignment swing.

[Yora]

I don't get the first one: First you go to the four dungeons to get the four gems and then you have to put them back?

Second one can work, but depends greatly on how much the players try to play their characters as people and how they do that. If they think the elven warlord is an evil dictator who is as mean to his own people as to his neighbors, and they are working with the human lords mostly because they have a common enemy, then everything should be fine. If the PCs believe the elves are all fully behind their leader in attacking the humans, then the PCs might even side with the human leaders to whipe the elven realm out.

[Boci]

For the first scenario- yeah that would be fairly annoying. Why did we go through all this to weaken the cult if the blight lord doesn't need them to return? Wouldn't we have done better to focus on preventing the return, and get ourselves out of this situation to start with.

Yes it was pointless (or worse than pointless, it actually made things harder), but neither the PCs nor anyone they were working for knew that.

I don't get the first one: First you go to the four dungeons to get the four gems and then you have to put them back?

You kill the cultists, take their soul gems and hide them to prevent them being brought back. Then when you realize you need them (or at least their blood) you reclaim their soul gems.

For the... other first scenario. I don't think most players would go for that. If you set them up as fighting against the Elves, it's going to be tricky to get them to decide to switch sides without making the humans suddenly and hilariously evil, which will piss them off unless there's a good explanation for the sudden alignment swing.

Enslaving an entire population isn't enough? As for why the humans are doing it, they were almost destroyed and they do not want that to happen again.

[Sidmen]

So, in Scenario 1 we are assuming that the players "hide" the soulstones in places that they can be recovered? That is a pretty poor assumption if my players are anything to base it on. One of those gemstones will be hurled into the astral plane, another will be sitting inside the molten lava of the planet's mantle, another will be seated in the cup of a god, etc. etc.

If you are hiding something to never be recovered - you don't put it in places that can be recovered - at the start you are assuming your players are incompetent.

In Scenario 2, why exactly are the players switching sides? If an elven nation attacked my homeland, killed a bunch of people, then were defeated - hells yes I'd be enslaving them to rebuild what they tore down. You'd need to know beforehand that your PCs have an aversion to slavery (not everyone automatically assumes it is evil) - it won't always work.

All in all, your examples are poor. But here is one that I think will actually work.

Story 1: The story begins with some good old-fashioned grave robbery/adventuring. The players delve into an ancient burial mound to recover the seven gems of Xanadu - priceless gemstones that they immediately hock for booze money.

Story 2: Turns out, the gems of Xanadu are material components for a magical wish-granting machine, and an ancient litch would really rather have them back. So he forces the players to search the globe to recover these precious stones - from the royal crown of Princess Mudslinger, the vault of the Merchant Prince of Kang, etc. etc.

[Yora]

There are many that work well:

Part 1: Only one man can unite the lords of the country against the evil invaders.
Part 2: That man can not remain on the throne.

Part 1: Storm the fortress.
Part 2: Defend the fortress.

The goal is the same, but now the tables are turned.

[Boci]

So, in Scenario 1 we are assuming that the players "hide" the soulstones in places that they can be recovered? That is a pretty poor assumption if my players are anything to base it on. One of those gemstones will be hurled into the astral plane, another will be sitting inside the molten lava of the planet's mantle, another will be seated in the cup of a god, etc. etc.

There is a reason why I didn't tie a game system to either scenario: so this wouldn't happen. I know it sounds very D&D-ish, but that because its the game that I play the most.

Really I'm not interesting in picking the scenarios apart. I know they are contrived, but they are like that way for a reason. I know its hard to answer a hypothetical question if you cannot imagine it happening because you would have done differently, but then this thread isn't for you. I'm not really interesting in coming up with good ways to make this happen, I am interesting in how these two scenarios would be received.

[Sidmen]

There is a reason why I didn't tie a game system to either scenario: so this wouldn't happen. I know it sounds very D&D-ish, but that because its the game that I play the most.

Really I'm not interesting in picking the scenarios apart. I know they are contrived, but they are like that way for a reason. I know its hard to answer a hypothetical question if you cannot imagine it happening because you would have done differently, but then this thread isn't for you. I'm not really interesting in coming up with good ways to make this happen, I am interesting in how these two scenarios would be received.

I... have no idea what it is you are wanting. Both scenarios would be received pretty poorly unless the players did exactly the things that you want them to do in order to set up the second part of the story - and even then the second scenario isn't cut-and dried "we must side with the rebel elves (who were slaughtering our families a few weeks ago)".

Here is how I would feel if I were playing in these two hypothetical games:

Scenario 1: Evil cultists? Meh, unless they're out to kill my dog I doubt I'd care about their cliche'd asses. But, ok, I got paid to bring them down and lock their essences away in four elementally themed places (one in the deepest depths of the ocean, another on the highest peak of the mountains, another deep within a volcano, and the third on the blasted plains of Xanadu.

When the second game came around I would be kinda pissed - the dude who told us to hide the soulgems would get punched in the face, even if he is one of those ultra-powerful NPCs. There is also a good chance I'd tell whoever gave me the quest to find someone else - I just did that.

Scenario 2: I would love the first half of this game - putting the racist "superior" elves in their place is something I always enjoy. Then when the second game came around I would side with the Humans and probably get into some PvP to stop my party from helping the EVIL ELVES that had just tried to kill us. It would be slightly annoying, unless I won over the party and we became the oppressors. I would, then, (after dying in the before mentioned PvP) create an Elven freedom fighter and play out my fantasy of being a stuck-up elf ashamed that he lost to a bunch of filthy humans.

[NichG]

I'd say don't assume any particular course of action from your PCs. That's important. If you have something where half your campaign will depend on the PCs hiding objects they obtained, there's a better-than-even chance that the PCs don't hide them but instead say 'they're safest with us!' and keep them. And so on. It's better to design a plot with the expectation that it will get broken and have something even more interesting for it to break into.

So for an undo style of plotline, I'd say don't go in assuming that the PCs will do something specific that needs to be undone. Just go in with a lot of situations where the PCs don't have the information to make really good choices, but the consequences of bad choices takes awhile to resolve. That will naturally create a lot of 'oops!' scenarios, some of which the PCs will want to go back and try to fix.

For example, in one of my campaigns the PCs ended up going through a portal to the plane of Karma. It was a place of big, towering mountains and pagodas along the mountain tops, but was completely empty. In one place they saw a crack in the earth leading down to a pit covered in names, at the bottom of which was a huge prayer wheel spinning on its tip like a top, but it was nearly spinning parallel to the ground about to tip over. They had no idea what any of this was, but one of them decided to poke it and accidentally caused it to crash and stop spinning. It turned out (they had no way of knowing this) that this was a physical representation of a massive cosmic karmic imbalance, and they had just forced it to be resolved. Twenty games later or so when they were much stronger, they decided to go back to Karma and to try to fix what they had wrought.

I didn't go in saying 'the players will crash the karmic dreidel', I just put a thing in front of them that was a huge lever and waited to see what they did. If they had moved on without touching it, that plotline wouldn't've occurred, so I made sure that the plotline was basically a side-story related but not essential to the main story.

[Xiander]

I... have no idea what it is you are wanting. Both scenarios would be received pretty poorly unless the players did exactly the things that you want them to do in order to set up the second part of the story - and even then the second scenario isn't cut-and dried "we must side with the rebel elves (who were slaughtering our families a few weeks ago)".

But how do you feel about the concept of a story-line with two major arc, which follows this pattern: Arc 1; strive hard to set up situation x. Arc 2; something unexpected happened, leading situation X to be very bad, thus you have to work to undo it.
Assuming you cannot simply remove whatever makes situation X bad.
Would you be able to enjoy such a plot?


Personally I think it is all about execution.
If it is done right it can work, but if it is done poorly it will be really annoying.

[The Random NPC]

I agree with Xiander, it the second flows logically from the first it won't be so bad. So if the Humans were always evil and you had been tricked to fight the Elves, then it is good. If the Humans just suddenly turned evil for no reason, that would be bad.

[Sidmen]

But how do you feel about the concept of a story-line with two major arc, which follows this pattern: Arc 1; strive hard to set up situation x. Arc 2; something unexpected happened, leading situation X to be very bad, thus you have to work to undo it.
Assuming you cannot simply remove whatever makes situation X bad.
Would you be able to enjoy such a plot?


Personally I think it is all about execution.
If it is done right it can work, but if it is done poorly it will be really annoying.

The OP outright told me that he didn't want alternate suggestions or the hypothetical to be answered. The answer to the hypothetical is a resounding "yes, it can work just fine" with an added "but the particulars you just listed are terrible and would upset me as a player". As I said - I'm really not sure what the OP is asking about anymore, besides a confirmation that a "fixing the problems you created" storyline can indeed be fun.

[valadil]

As a GM I really like surprising the players. This leads to a lot of twist endings where the players were really working for the bad guy or the right choice did more harm, etc. I don't necessarily go for things where the players have to reverse their hard work, but I think the effect is still the same.

This sort of scenario can be fun, but it's easy to overdo it. I found very early on that I can provide more plot twists than the players can tolerate. Past a certain point and the players just lose interest in following the twists. They know you're going to reverse things on them, but can't pinpoint how, so they just stop trying. This is especially true or your twists and turns don't have clues leading up to them. It's one thing if the players don't discover the clues or fail to put them together, but if you keep it secret for added drama during the big reveal, you're just pissing off your players.

Point is, I think you could do those scenarios or something like them. Then stop. If you do three quests in a row where completing the quest made things worse, the players won't want to do the fourth quest. But the first time around was probably fine.

I'd also like to add that players don't like losing their progress. It's okay if they have to undo some of it, but make sure some of what they've done can stick around. You mentioned a respawning dungeon. If the players disable the spawn points in their first trip through, keep them disabled. You have to draw attention to the things they've accomplished that were worthwhile so they don't feel like they've achieved nothing

[VanBuren]

But how do you feel about the concept of a story-line with two major arc, which follows this pattern: Arc 1; strive hard to set up situation x. Arc 2; something unexpected happened, leading situation X to be very bad, thus you have to work to undo it.
Assuming you cannot simply remove whatever makes situation X bad.
Would you be able to enjoy such a plot?


Personally I think it is all about execution.
If it is done right it can work, but if it is done poorly it will be really annoying.

Well, it depends. Someone brought up an example earlier of a situation where you needed to get someone on the throne to unite a large group of people, but then when the conflict is over it becomes clear that he cannot be allowed to remain on the throne. This solves an issue that I think your examples have.

In your examples, the PCs have to undo what they've done because what they've done has been almost completely invalidated. In the situation above, the PCs have to undo what they've done, but it was still the right and necessary thing to have done it. Basically, they have to undo the work but the work wasn't made invalid.

Does that make sense?

[TuggyNE]

One idea I've heard before is to start with an evil party with far-reaching ambitions, follow their misadventures until they've established themselves and basically achieved their goals for the most part, then switch to a more traditional group of good (and neutral) adventurers to take them down. That's more of "two connected campaigns", though.

[jackattack]

How would these be received?

Poorly.

[ClockShock]

The first scenario sounds pretty cool actually. I'd enjoy it. However, I would advise some down time between the two sections. Give the players the satisfaction of completing their goals (hiding the gemstones), reward them well for it and distract them with a couple of side quests (more rewards, more levels)
Maybe even add a year or two downtime - just something to help the passage of time.
Then drop the next section on them.

The second scenario sounds like it would please more players, but would also be a lot tougher to balance. It's a political affair, so it might be plausible to get wrapped into fighting against the elves, and then as the politics shift fighting for them. The risk is that you demonise the elves to get the players to go along first of all, and then they don't want to help them later.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, it depends. Someone brought up an example earlier of a situation where you needed to get someone on the throne to unite a large group of people, but then when the conflict is over it becomes clear that he cannot be allowed to remain on the throne. This solves an issue that I think your examples have.

In your examples, the PCs have to undo what they've done because what they've done has been almost completely invalidated. In the situation above, the PCs have to undo what they've done, but it was still the right and necessary thing to have done it. Basically, they have to undo the work but the work wasn't made invalid.

Does that make sense?

This. Spending the second half of the campaign invalidating the first half? Boring. It's like digging a hole and filling it up again.

But a world in which you must work against those you formerly worked with, because the situation has changed? Entirely legit.

[Boci]

Well, it depends. Someone brought up an example earlier of a situation where you needed to get someone on the throne to unite a large group of people, but then when the conflict is over it becomes clear that he cannot be allowed to remain on the throne. This solves an issue that I think your examples have.

In your examples, the PCs have to undo what they've done because what they've done has been almost completely invalidated. In the situation above, the PCs have to undo what they've done, but it was still the right and necessary thing to have done it. Basically, they have to undo the work but the work wasn't made invalid.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but do you think the second scenario involves the PCs needing "to undo what they've done because what they've done has been almost completely invalidated"?

This. Spending the second half of the campaign invalidating the first half? Boring. It's like digging a hole and filling it up again.

But a world in which you must work against those you formerly worked with, because the situation has changed? Entirely legit.

So you are also okay with the 2nd but not the first?


Also: extra information:
1st scenario: Assume that whilst the DM had four suggestions planned out, the PCs only took two of them, and chose the other two upon evaluating the realm through IC research.

2nd scenario: Assume that there always was some elven hatred amongst the humans, but there is nothing that strange in a human army fighting elves. The PCs never really had contact with the political figures, so whilst it is unlikely they could have seen the plan coming, they couldn1t say it came completely out of nowhere.

[Dire Panda]

VanBuren and Tyndmyr are right on the money, the trick is to make sure that something is achieved in the end. I can see your scenario #2 being fun to play (and unfortunately reminiscent of real-world ethnic conflicts in how quickly victim and oppressor can switch), especially if dethroning the bigots on both sides leads to a lasting peace.

An example of conflicting objectives accomplishing something: my current campaign involves a fair amount of 'undoing.' The heroes of the last campaign destroyed the primal deity - That Which is Mother and Devourer - just before it awoke to consume the current universe. Yes, they saved the world and broke the eternal cycle of creation and consumption, but at a terrible cost - destroying the original god cut off the cosmic source of magic. Now, five hundred years later, the lesser gods have withered and died, magic is rare and frightening, E6 rules are in effect, and the world is only starting to recover from a long dark age.

Enter the present campaign. The new heroes have difficult decisions to make in the last act, one of which is whether or not to revitalize civilization by creating a new source of magic from the spawn of said elder god. There's a mechanism in place for 'lobotomizing' it so it never achieves self-awareness and devours the universe, but the big moral issue is whether fixing civilization is worth feeding this creature thousands of souls a year. If they decide to do this, they're sure to come into conflict with the original heroes, who are still alive somewhere out there and won't appreciate the risks the new party took...

[Sudain]

VanBuren and Tyndmyr are right on the money, the trick is to make sure that something is achieved in the end. I can see your scenario #2 being fun to play (and unfortunately reminiscent of real-world ethnic conflicts in how quickly victim and oppressor can switch), especially if dethroning the bigots on both sides leads to a lasting peace.

An example of conflicting objectives accomplishing something: my current campaign involves a fair amount of 'undoing.' The heroes of the last campaign destroyed the primal deity - That Which is Mother and Devourer - just before it awoke to consume the current universe. Yes, they saved the world and broke the eternal cycle of creation and consumption, but at a terrible cost - destroying the original god cut off the cosmic source of magic. Now, five hundred years later, the lesser gods have withered and died, magic is rare and frightening, E6 rules are in effect, and the world is only starting to recover from a long dark age.

Enter the present campaign. The new heroes have difficult decisions to make in the last act, one of which is whether or not to revitalize civilization by creating a new source of magic from the spawn of said elder god. There's a mechanism in place for 'lobotomizing' it so it never achieves self-awareness and devours the universe, but the big moral issue is whether fixing civilization is worth feeding this creature thousands of souls a year. If they decide to do this, they're sure to come into conflict with the original heroes, who are still alive somewhere out there and won't appreciate the risks the new party took...

This sounds like an interesting campaign plot. May I steal elements from it?

[Sudain]

If you are going to do an 'undo' hook in your campaign I would suggest not totally invalidating the efforts of the 1st half.

1) You go around destroying 8 relics of terrible power that are being used to wreak havoc on the world. What you didn't realize was they were only powerful because they were actually prisons for far more powerful and naughty creatures.
2) Go find, beat down, and imprison the monsters again. And hopefully hide the relics better this time.

In both halves you accomplish something.

[VanBuren]

Yes, but do you think the second scenario involves the PCs needing "to undo what they've done because what they've done has been almost completely invalidated"?

Well... no. Because they've still achieved what they set out to achieve by putting him on the throne in the first place. He united the tribes and managed to defeat the great threat. No matter what happens next, that remains done, and it also remains true that putting this specific individual was important--if not outright necessary--to completing that goal. Unfortunately, he's power-hungry and needs to be removed.

In one sense, they have to undo the work they did by taking someone off the throne that they put on. On the other hand, everything they needed him on the throne to accomplish remains just so.

So to answer your question: No, I think it's totally different.

[Boci]

Well... no. Because they've still achieved what they set out to achieve by putting him on the throne in the first place. He united the tribes and managed to defeat the great threat. No matter what happens next, that remains done, and it also remains true that putting this specific individual was important--if not outright necessary--to completing that goal. Unfortunately, he's power-hungry and needs to be removed.

In one sense, they have to undo the work they did by taking someone off the throne that they put on. On the other hand, everything they needed him on the throne to accomplish remains just so.

So to answer your question: No, I think it's totally different.

That one wasn't mine, I was talking about the second scenario in the OP, defeating the elven warlord then saving the elves.

[Fiery Diamond]

The OP outright told me that he didn't want alternate suggestions or the hypothetical to be answered. The answer to the hypothetical is a resounding "yes, it can work just fine" with an added "but the particulars you just listed are terrible and would upset me as a player". As I said - I'm really not sure what the OP is asking about anymore, besides a confirmation that a "fixing the problems you created" storyline can indeed be fun.

Actually, you misunderstood what the OP was saying (that's easy to do with how Boci phrases things). OP was not saying he didn't want the hypothetical to be answered: he was saying he DID want the hypothetical to be answered and that the specific examples he gave were not the point so don't argue about the problems with the specific examples, just focus on the hypothetical. The examples were there for people who wouldn't be able to understand what the hypothetical was without being given an example.

At least, that's what I THINK Boci was saying.

[Boci]

Actually, you misunderstood what the OP was saying (that's easy to do with how Boci phrases things). OP was not saying he didn't want the hypothetical to be answered: he was saying he DID want the hypothetical to be answered and that the specific examples he gave were not the point so don't argue about the problems with the specific examples, just focus on the hypothetical. The examples were there for people who wouldn't be able to understand what the hypothetical was without being given an example.

At least, that's what I THINK Boci was saying.

Nope.

There is a reason why I didn't tie a game system to either scenario: so this wouldn't happen. I know it sounds very D&D-ish, but that because its the game that I play the most.

Really I'm not interesting in picking the scenarios apart. I know they are contrived, but they are like that way for a reason. I know its hard to answer a hypothetical question if you cannot imagine it happening because you would have done differently, but then this thread isn't for you. I'm not really interesting in coming up with good ways to make this happen, I am interesting in how these two scenarios would be received.

Am I really that unclear?

[VanBuren]

That one wasn't mine, I was talking about the second scenario in the OP, defeating the elven warlord then saving the elves.

I hate to give you a non-committal answer, but it really all depends on the execution. The trick is to find a way to get them to work against their previous actions, but not against their goals. Or rather, they can work against previous objectives, but not against long-term overarching goals.

You need to make sure that even as they undo some of what they've done, you're not undoing the significance or importance of it. Just because this is the right thing now, doesn't mean that wasn't the right thing then. And if you can, make sure that some of what they initially did can remain in some form--preferably a positive one.

[Fiery Diamond]

Nope.



Am I really that unclear?

I see. In that case, I second the complete confusion of the person I quoted. These two things:

1) Don't pick the scenarios apart
2) How would you receive/respond to these scenarios?

are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You cannot say both of those things. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. It is completely illogical and results in a brain shutdown of someone trying to understand it. It's like saying "Now take this reading comprehension test, but don't think about what you read in it." Bwuh?

[Boci]

I see. In that case, I second the complete confusion of the person I quoted. These two things:

1) Don't pick the scenarios apart
2) How would you receive/respond to these scenarios?

are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You cannot say both of those things. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. It is completely illogical and results in a brain shutdown of someone trying to understand it. It's like saying "Now take this reading comprehension test, but don't think about what you read in it." Bwuh?

If you cannot imagine your character following the story laid out in each scenario, then this thread isn't for you. Others have been able to do so, so I know it is possible.