A grand campaign plot? Or just GM dickery?


Advice

Dark Archive

For years now, I've had a campaign idea in mind, that never quite saw full completion, and I've oft wondered if it was a totally brilliant idea, or me just being a complete asshat of a GM. I was hoping you guys, the average players and GMs of the world, would provide your own thoughts on the matter.

Guardians Against the Heavens campaign outline, 2nd half:
Due to the PCs' actions during wartime, a powerful magical monument (a statue of a petrified hero said to have saved the world from an unknown menace eons ago) is damaged, and the magic within it that protects their nation begins to fail, causing a dramatic surge of strange events and monstrous uprisings.

In a desperate attempt to keep the magical wards from failing altogether, the PCs adventure to a far off realm populated by giants. An idealistic paradise rumored to possess a powerful artifact that can cure any ill or fix any malady, including the growing cancer that threatened to destroy their nation.

Little do most of the PCs know that one of their members, a dwarven paladin who died early on in the campaign setting, had an out of body experience of sorts--a lengthy side adventure--in which he visited this very land, and met the leaders of two rival giant factions. The two factions, one overtly good and one overtly evil, were in the midst of a holy war, when the dwarf paladin suddenly appeared in the good giants' sacred temple, awakening mysteriously underneath the glowing light of a magical orb in a supernaturally beautiful glade and spring. The goodly giants who found him treated him compassionately, hailing him as "the chosen one" (but saying little more than that about it) and cloaking his naked form with their recently deceased prince's child-sized armor and loaning him a large transforming handaxe that could resize to better suit him.

The forces of the evil giants' faction later kidnapped the dwarven paladin and brought him before their leader, a titan of overwhelming strength and charisma. The titan revealed to the paladin that it was the dwarf's destiny to destroy the giants' paradise, bringing blight and death to their land, and that the rebellion against the goodly giants existed for no other purpose than as an attempt to save giantkind from such a terrible fate. The goodly giants were zealots and such devout believers in fate and destiny, however, that they were knowingly driving themselves towards what they saw as an inevitable and natural destruction--to attempt to change the course of that destiny was a vile blasphemy to them. After convincing the titan that he could not be the "chosen one" spoken of in the prophecy, and proving that he meant no harm upon anyone's people, the titan cast him out of their land, magically transporting him back to his homeland, where he had initially died.

=== This is where the campaign ended for the time being. The rest is what I plan for the future. ===

Years after his return home, the dwarf paladin would be plagued with visions of the mystical orb that had brought him to life. Visions of his stealing it away from the giants to keep it out of the hands of a great and formless entity of even greater evil. Many times, he saw himself standing upon a steep precipice above an endless "churning" of chaotic energies, the paladin knew without a doubt that he would one day face this unknown menace. In his vision, rather than let the vile thing possess the orb for itself, he would cast it into the great churning, to be forever lost, much to the great old one's endless rage. This vision would repeat itself several times during his adventures, varying slightly each time, but always ending the same way.

The paladin would ultimately lead his friends back to the lands of the giants in search of the glowing orb that could fix any ailment, cure any disease, even bring people back from the dead (as only the paladin knew the truth of). The plan was to use it to save their home, though the paladin would also seek to destroy it once their mission had succeeded.

Upon arriving in the land of the giants (a quest unto itself), they would find the war long having ended, with the titan having cast down the holy zealots. Where he was once somewhat amenable to the dwarf in the past, he now stands against the party as a great and terrible foe still trying to protect his land and its peoples from menace that once promised never to return to their shores. The PCs have to work against his agents to infiltrate the giants' fortress and steal the artifact orb back to their lands (which, unbeknownst to the PCs, later causes the giant's paradise to fall apart, magically rotting into decrepit ruin, fulfilling the zealots' prophecy).

Upon returning home from their quest, the PCs are greeted as heroes and a great parade is thrown in their honor, as they place their newly acquired artifact orb into the cracked hands of their monument. The statue's growing cracks magically recede, and the monument is once again made whole. Peace and prosperity quickly return to their lands, for a time. Then, suddenly amidst the celebrations that continued late into the night, the statue transforms into a living being in front of thousands of onlookers--the ancient hero of old once again awakened from his long slumber. The hero frantically screams at the crowd, "What have you done!?" before forever collapsing into a mad fit of insanity.

The magic of the orb worked too well. Not only did it fix the statue, it cured the ancient hero's petrification. The statue now gone, its wards no longer in place to protect the world, the stars of the heavens begin to fall to the earth, creating untold levels of destruction and leaving the sky a dark, empty void.

The stars crash down all around the world, unleashing indescribable horrors. Only the members of the Church of the Stars, the most prominent faith in the world, sees this calamity as being positive--their gods returned. Most others flee in terror at the hoards of hideous beings that beset their kingdoms. The heroes themselves are forced to stop their revels to save their home from the sudden menace erupting from the remains of one of the fallen stars that landed in the middle of their celebrations.

The skirmishes against the arrival of this unknown foe leads them back to the statue's base, where the orb and madman lay. It soon becomes clear to the heroes that the monsters' swath of destruction is leading them directly towards the artifact. One monster is seen grabbing the sphere as the PCs arrive, though the creature is burned hideously at it's touch, forcing it to retreat. As the PCs fight against the hoard, trying to save the orb and the civilians caught up in the madness, a mechanized retriever gathers up the orb in lieu of its alien masters, and retreats with the prize.

Little is gleaned from the ancient hero before he dies of mysterious causes. It would appear that he himself used the artifact against the aliens eons ago. Lacking enough power to destroy the aliens alone, he instead used it to "trap them in the sky"--an act that petrified him for untold eons. Should the alien beings figure out the secrets of the artifact, endless worlds would fall before the might of their infinite empire.

The rest of the campaign consists of the PCs waging an increasingly hopeless war against the growing alien menace, which consists primarily of aberrations and the fanatical church that now worships them as their gods, and the mutant hybrids that the "truly devout" are increasingly transformed into. Years after the start of this new "dark age," a massive explosion and column of light is seen in a far off land. Divination magic indicates that the source is the heart of the alien holdings, and that the power was released by the artifact that was lost so long ago.

The PCs, once war heroes for their realm, now war heroes for the entire world, set out on a new mission to investigate the disturbance. There they find an alien fortress floating far out to sea, the very heart of their enemy's forces and the home to its terrible leader. Fighting (or sneaking) their way into the fortress, they ultimately find their way to the artifact, then to the leader of the alien menace, the being from the paladin's dreams--a great old one of such power that he is absolutely unassailable by mortal means.

The paladin is left with only two choices: harness the power of the artifact with his friends against the alien menace, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his friends, or throw the orb into the churning chaos below, ensuring its powers are forever beyond the grasp of the great evil.

If he utilizes the artifact's power to destroy the great old one--a task requiring the efforts of the entire party--the orb explodes, destroying the great old one (causing its forces around the world to become dramatically weakened, allowing humanity to finally beat them), and the paladin and the party are forever petrified, a condition that cannot be reversed by any known mortal means. This is the campaign's "good" ending, with future campaigns possibly featuring their heroic statues making an appearance.

If the paladin casts the orb into the churning abyss, however, it is entirely destroyed to a magnificent and ultimately useless effect. The great old one not only knew the artifact was the only thing the could destroy him, but so too knew the means of the artifact's destruction--a task that could only be carried out by the purest heart set only ever on doing good deeds. So for years he fed his agent, the paladin, heroic visions of destroying the artifact in order to keep it out of the hands (tendrils?) of evil, manipulating the fool into ensuring the great old one's everlasting rule over the world, as well as the whole of the universe. This is the campaign's "bad ending."

So my question is simply this: Is this a dick move? Or an awesome way to end a several-years-long campaign?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer is yes

Whether that is yes it's a dick move or an awesome end to the campaign depends on your group and in particular the Paladin's player and how many counter-clues you are going to implement. Fundamentally you are lying to a player at the outset and establishing the whole campaign's goal as the players would understand it on the basis of that lie. They would understandably feel cheated if they completed the campaign only to be told they'd been tricked into doing evil's bidding. To counter that, you need to liberally sprinkle the campaign with clues and doubt as to whether the premise is legitimate. You may find this article about the 3 clue rule useful. If the clue trail is done well and the players enjoy a mystery element to the game then you should have a magnificent campaign.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
To counter that, you need to liberally sprinkle the campaign with clues and doubt as to whether the premise is legitimate. You may find this article about the 3 clue rule useful.

That article is fascinating! Thank you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One issue that might arise is that the campaign strikes me as "The Adventures of a Dwarf Paladin... and friends". All of the really serious plot points revolve around this one party member. One thing you could do is feed the hints that his visions aren't reliable to the other party members; give them reason to doubt what he believes so they have the task of convincing him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
One issue that might arise is that the campaign strikes me as "The Adventures of a Dwarf Paladin... and friends". All of the really serious plot points revolve around this one party member. One thing you could do is feed the hints that his visions aren't reliable to the other party members; give them reason to doubt what he believes so they have the task of convincing him.

That could be a really good idea, depending on the group. Your campaign may turn into a version of Paranoia though, where the players start to disagree with each other and get frustrated. Arachnofiend's point about it being centred one character is well made though. Perhaps it could be a group vision - could there be multiple parts to play so each character has a turn to lead, or better still the party all has to work together? Perhaps making them all part of the same church might provide some unity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM is the players only window onto the universe. Presenting a false view of the universe is fraught with peril that can leave the players (not just the characters) feeling you are against them and tricking them. In addition, players often feel that they should 'go along' with the basic premise of a campaign as part of the social contract of playing the game. Having key aspects of the campaign force them into being the bad guys, the reason for the downfall is another way to lose trust.

Finally, it seems like you have it all really planned out, so planned out that their doesn't seem to be much point in actually playing the game. If you are going to run a railroad, it is best if you at least spend some time disguising that, make sure they have at least the illusion of choice if you can't manage to allow them the real thing.

Personally, it doesn't sound like a game I would enjoy very much, but you could probably make a pretty interesting novel from it. Players tastes vary though, and if your players have more tolerance for this sort of thing than I do they might well enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what you have mapped out is the best you can do if they follow the Dwarf's flawed path. Encourage him to believe wholly that his is the one true way. Dwarves love railroads, don'cha know.
Obviously the rest of the party's ideas are madness:
To link the kingdom of the Titan's with their own?
To bring more Powers to bear to reinforce the Wards?
And I'll bet almost anything the party can come up with more and better.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Railroad? It really surprises me to read that from not one, but two people, as I'm painting with some VERY broad brush strokes here. This is just a loose outline of my overall idea, with a great deal of details and adventure to be filled in by the players themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vigo Thornrose wrote:
Railroad? It really surprises me to read that from not one, but two people, as I'm painting with some VERY broad brush strokes here. This is just a loose outline of my overall idea, with a great deal of details and adventure to be filled in by the players themselves.

I don't consider knowing the BBEG's plot and timeline ahead of time to be a bad thing. The campaign then becomes one of the heroes disrupting the plot. The GM reacts by making new plans for the BBEG based on the current circumstances and their available resources, which the players continue to disrupt. It's about as far from railroading as you can get.

Pushing the players along a predetermined storyline that they cannot effect is railroading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but it did sound like your major plot points, the taking of the orb, the fall of the Tallfolk Paradise, the resurrection of the hero and breaking of the wards were all inevitable. My apologies for misreading, but, it really did seem to be what you were saying.


In my opinion, it's a dick move. I would be disappointed by that ending if I were playing that campaign.

Dark Archive

Knight who says Meh wrote:
In my opinion, it's a dick move. I would be disappointed by that ending if I were playing that campaign.

Care to elaborate a bit on why it is you might feel that way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you do if the paladin player chooses to have his PC "fall?"

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mardaddy wrote:
What do you do if the paladin player chooses to have his PC "fall?"

Isn't it ultimately the GM who determines when a paladin falls? As such, I see this as something of a moot point.

If for some reason the paladin lost his innocence (and couldn't atone for some unfathomable reason) and thus was no longer able to destroy the artifact, then naturally, I would need to change the conditions required to destroy the artifact.

That's kind of a key part of the whole story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vigo Thornrose wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
In my opinion, it's a dick move. I would be disappointed by that ending if I were playing that campaign.
Care to elaborate a bit on why it is you might feel that way?

Similar to what others have said. It basically seems like tricking the PC into failing. The Paladin being a religious class, the natural assumption would be that the visions are divinely inspired. Unless you provide the player with a way to discover the true source of his vision, then essentially his "god" is lying to him. Of course if he does find out, then the visions become meaningless. Frankly, even the "good" ending would be disappointing to me, as a player. It might work as a story, but as a game you're kind of robbing your players of agency. I understand it would be at the end of the game so maybe it seems like it wouldn't matter but I still wouldn't like it. Any connections made with any NPCs become moot, any plans for retirement go unfulfilled, etc. The game ends with "Congratulations, you're dead!" Again, all this is just my personal opinion, but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth for a campaign (especially one as massive as you're describing) to end that way. As for the "bad" ending...yeesh! I would probably never play a paladin in your games again. Tricking him into destroying the world (and more)? Honestly, I might not ever play in any of your games again, regardless of character class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

those points are plot points. everything leading up to the "fall of the tallfolk" is the quest, and them completing it is just the needle on the donkey's back that killed it and leads to the fall. another quest is them bringing back the orb. that just so happens to break the binding on the hero. its like saying that ending up at the road side inn that night is railroading.

these are kinda bad rewards to be getting for doing the right thing and should be a warning in and of themselves. we retrieved the orb of power. but in doing so caused the death of a whole race...... big hint there that what they are doing is not right and that they should be checking out some history books at their local library. and wouldn't the pally's god kinda not want him to be doing the bidding of an evil bidding? seems like something is there. like his god not allowing him to use his or her power. not really a fall but a cut off. something to do with faith and the greater good. like a short circuit the power of his god is not always getting through. since cthulhu is worming his way into that connection and damaging it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Similar to what others have said. It basically seems like tricking the PC into failing. The Paladin being a religious class, the natural assumption would be that the visions are divinely inspired. Unless you provide the player with a way to discover the true source of his vision, then essentially his "god" is lying to him. Of course if he does find out, then the visions become meaningless. Frankly, even the "good" ending would be disappointing to me, as a player. It might work as a story, but as a game you're kind of robbing your players of agency. I understand it would be at the end of the game so maybe it seems like it wouldn't matter but I still wouldn't like it. Any connections made with any NPCs become moot, any plans for retirement go unfulfilled, etc. The game ends with "Congratulations, you're dead!" Again, all this is just my personal opinion, but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth for a campaign (especially one as massive as you're describing) to end that way. As for the "bad" ending...yeesh! I would probably never play a paladin in your games again. Tricking him into destroying the world (and more)? Honestly, I might not ever play in any of your games again, regardless of character class.

Would the good ending make any difference to you if the heroes weren't petrified/killed by the artifact; if they could go on and retire, or help mop up the remaining invaders, or whatever?

I for one kind of like the idea of finality at the end of the campaign. Sure the players would likely be sad to see it end, but for better or for worse, it would certainly be memorable.

It could even be an exciting lead in to a new Starfinder campaign.

zainale wrote:
these are kinda bad rewards to be getting for doing the right thing and should be a warning in and of themselves. we retrieved the orb of power. but in doing so caused the death of a whole race...... big hint there that what they are doing is not right and that they should be checking out some history books at their local library. and wouldn't the pally's god kinda not want him to be doing the bidding of an evil bidding? seems like something is there. like his god not allowing him to use his or her power. not really a fall but a cut off. something to do with faith and the greater good. like a short circuit the power of his god is not always getting through. since cthulhu is worming his way into that connection and damaging it.

Local libraries won't have anything on the land of the giants. It's existence was pretty much unknown before the dwarf's arrival. What little could be found would be so steeped in legend as to be practically useless.

The paladin's god isn't much of an issue. For one, this is a homebrew game in which the gods existence is not confirmed. Second, the paladin player himself quite clearly proclaimed that his character doesn't have a god, but rather follows a divine concept, like some clerics do. Specifically, he considers himself a paladin of the people, and gains his power from them somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Isn't it ultimately the GM who determines when a paladin falls? As such, I see this as something of a moot point.

The paladin class is one of my favorite classes, thematically. The last time I played one, I ended up in a situation were my character knew a small village was about to be raided by marauders but was in a time crunch related to destroying an evil artifact. I choose to destroy the artifact (as that was the focus of the campaign) instead of saving the village. Afterwards, I retired that character. His failure to save the village broke my interest in playing him anymore. It's been awhile since I've played a paladin.

It's not always the GM who decides when a paladin falls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vigo wrote:


Isn't it ultimately the GM who determines when a paladin falls? As such, I see this as something of a moot point.

If for some reason the paladin lost his innocence (and couldn't atone for some unfathomable reason) and thus was no longer able to destroy the artifact, then naturally, I would need to change the conditions required to destroy the artifact.

That's kind of a key part of the whole story.

That this is GOING to happen, especially at the party's hands, is pretty much the definition of railroading.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
That this is GOING to happen, especially at the party's hands, is pretty much the definition of railroading.

Would you mind clarifying for us what you consider the definition of railroading to be then?

The way I see it, there is a big difference between railroading, and getting the game back on track so that the campaign can keep moving forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's only railroading when the players feel like they don't have a choice.

Tricking them to bite the bait is OK, giving them a good motivation is OK, leaving them with no options and denying them all the aditional ideas they could have is railroading.

A complete railroading can be easily turned to a non railroad by removing alm the elements that force the PCs to act in a determinated way and replacing them for motivations so they want to act that way.

That's where it becomes important to know your players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say there's also the risk of PvP if the other players try to stop the paladin from destroying the orb. Along with a big helping of "I told you so" if the paladin "succeeds" in destroying the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as railroading goes, as a player I don't mind knowing what the story is and how to move it along. The only thing that bothers me is when my character's actions become meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or when you want to solve an issue in a different way and the GM keeps barring all creative solutions because that's not how you're supposed to do it. I know that's not an issue for some people but personally I don't like it at all.

Also, when no matter what you do, the story will be still the same. Then your actions, as you said, become meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this would be a good ending so long as you give a fair* chance of finding out beforehand. Rule of 3 seems pretty fair. Don't see anything that qualifies as railroading though that usually comes out in session rather during the planning phase


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vigo wrote:
The way I see it, there is a big difference between railroading, and getting the game back on track so that the campaign can keep moving forward.

Was that a deliberate troll? On the off chance it wasn't, the term Railroading was (cleverly) created to describe a game plotline that could not move forward unless it was on a specific track, hence the railroad analogy. The party getting sidetracked, going off the rails, etc. are all extensions of the analogy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vigo Thornrose wrote:
mardaddy wrote:
What do you do if the paladin player chooses to have his PC "fall?"

Isn't it ultimately the GM who determines when a paladin falls? As such, I see this as something of a moot point.

If for some reason the paladin lost his innocence (and couldn't atone for some unfathomable reason) and thus was no longer able to destroy the artifact, then naturally, I would need to change the conditions required to destroy the artifact.

That's kind of a key part of the whole story.

Yeah, that sounds like railroading to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Railroading, to me, would be the players deciding not to destroy the ancient evil, then having the campaign somehow turn around and eat their characters' families, hopes, and dreams, so that they are left with nothing other than the choice to destroy the ancient evil, or quit the campaign. Essentially, all other avenues, doors, choices, or what have you suddenly become locked, become non-options, are taken away from them.

Adjusting the plot element (especially one the PCs aren't necessarily aware of yet) so that it remains possible for the PCs to succeed at all is not railroading, its a patch. No different than the three clues rules, only it's done as a haphazard reaction instead of a prearranged plan--which is something even GMs wise to the ways of the three clues rule have to do occasionally (since players are nothing if not talented at plot destruction).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Railroading, to me, would be the players deciding not to destroy the ancient evil, then having the campaign somehow turn around and eat their characters' families, hopes, and dreams, so that they are left with nothing other than the choice to destroy the ancient evil, or quit the campaign. Essentially, all other avenues, doors, choices, or what have you suddenly become locked, become non-options.

Adjusting the plot element (especially one the PCs arent yetaware of) so that it remains possible for the PCs to succeed at all is not railroading, its a patch. No different than the three clues rules, only it's done as a half hazard reaction instead of a prearranged plan--which is something even GMs wise to the ways of the three clues rule have to do occasionally (since players are nothing if not talented at plot destruction).

*haphazard


Ravingdork,

Definition Railrading wrote:

railroading

In gaming, the act of forcing a player to "choose to" do something they don't really want to in order to advance the plot according to the wishes or designs of the GM.

Thus, the player feels like they're being moved through a world (or plot) as if on train tracks, without any choice on where to go.

You're describing railroading with a huge trainload of Malliciosness and Tyrranical Dickery. Railroading is weak, maybe, but not outright nastiness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks, Pedantic Pete. What would I do without you?

Daw, is this your own personal definition of the term, or are you quoting a source of some kind?

Also, does anyone know if any of the Paizo source books mention and/or define railroading? The GameMastery Guide perhaps?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Urban Dictionary for the quote.
Old Age for remembering when people started using the term in gaming.

Pedantry is dull, but often important. If we don't have standard definitions in this short handed form of communication, we have no effective communication.

I so want to be able to think of a a clever Tower of Babel or Humpty Dumpty reference here, but I just can't manage it, sigh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Double posting, Ravingdork, page 36 of GameMastery Guide starts the discussion of Linear vs. Nonlinear.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / A grand campaign plot? Or just GM dickery? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.