So here's what I was thinking. Current game, 7th level, been playing for about 4-5 months. Everyone is comfortable with thier characters, understands the world, etc. They are currently trekking to an ancient city, the apparent destination of the gnoll invasion that has been ravaging thier lands all winter. I was thinking to reveal the history of said city, and then TPK them when the lich-king rises. The end of the session is that the whole game has been a story told around a campfire by descendents of the humanoid populace, now slaves for several generations to the gnolls. And starta whole new game that way. Too contrived? I think it has an Amazing Stories/ Twilight Zone feel to it, and it'll draw them into the new story that much more. Thoughts?
Wow! Excellent idea! If you can pull it off without your players feeling like they never had a chance to keep from dieing, I think it would be really cool. If I was playing in your group, I think I’d be annoyed by the TPK, but it would definitely draw me into this new setting you are introducing and give me a huge amount of motivation to defeat the lich king in round two!
I’d just caution you, when gearing up for the TPK encounter, to not take away the opportunity for your players ingenuity to allow them to escape somehow. You don’t have to kill them all in that one final encounter. Maybe they get hunted down one by one by the lich king’s minions. If anything, the inevitability of the party being wiped out, one by one, would only add to the horror and the impression of how evil and powerful the lich king really is. Perhaps after the last PC goes down (and you shift to the fireside story scene) the character stabilizes but was left for dead. As an NPC, the character watched in helpless horror as his homeland was destroyed and his people enslaved, and began to secretly organizing a resistance ever since. After all, the story must have gotten out somehow.
I would be really ticked (I mean because all I'm going to be thinking about is the next time we play the new party is going to be about wow when am I going to get killed with my team and discover this is a dream and I am really a little boy or something like) it doesn’t give them much chance if your not going to let it be possible to win. I mean that’s the point of the game isn’t it? To have the heroes come out on the top as.... well...HEROES! I don’t know I say you do the same thing only they win and have happy lives but the lich king returns when there older and most have died so no one can protect the people not even the Heroes and then start your story it just seems so... Unfair I guess... But that’s just me....
Yup, its unfair. Its "Luke, I am your father." level unfair. But my group are all relatively mature players, who like the story line so far, but have all mentioned the dreaded "my next character" words. I think the abrupt end to the story, and several of the characters, would leave them with a "WTF?!??!" moment, and then... I mean, they know they can;t take on a lich and survive. It may even be better if they ran, but were unable to contain the evil they had unleashed, give just that little bit extra tang of defeat.
And the point is not neccessarily to win my friend, but to make a good story. If they always win (an PCs generally do), they start to feel lackadaisical about challenges, like "Oh, the DM always gives us an out" or "it'll be a level appropriate challenge", meta gaming. Sometimes, heroes end up being on the losing side (ask anyone in the southern US). And to quote Kevin Smith "Empire is just like life, a series of downers..." :)
The real question that should be asked is: is the entire group ready for this story to end with these characters? That should be a group decision, not up to the sole descretion of the GM. After all, everyone around the table is creating that story...for the GM to pull the plug on that without the input of his/her players indicates to the players that they have no influence on the direction of either their characters or the story as a whole. I'm not a fan of that at all...it tells one something about how the GM approaches his/her role that i completely disagree with in principle and philosophy.
As ever,
ACE
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The real question that should be asked is: is the entire group ready for this story to end with these characters? That should be a group decision, not up to the sole descretion of the GM. After all, everyone around the table is creating that story...for the GM to pull the plug on that without the input of his/her players indicates to the players that they have no influence on the direction of either their characters or the story as a whole.
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, if you talk this decision over with your players and they agree to it, they will know it is coming and thus you lose the shock value of the transition. If a DM knows his players well enough, he should be able to judge how this decision will go over and, if the outcome seems favorable, I say go for it. Characters die. Whether the character dies in a random encounter that they should have had a chance of winning or in a completely one-sided stomping isn't the issue. The story is the most important part and if you think this is the best way to facilitate it, all the more power to you.
Ace, as a champion for players rights, I appluad your desire to have full input into all DM decisions. Suck it:) If you wanna run the game, do so, until then, SHOOSH :)
It really is a player-dependent situation. I have 3 veterans, one noob, and one I'm not sure of. I think all of them will go "WTF?!?!?! Rly?" "Yeah rly." "OMG....WTF?!?!?!?" And then they will begin to make horribly powergamed new characters, which i will nerf by giving them a low point buy and restricting access to books :) Its a little tug of war I like to call DMing.
But smartassedness aside, I think they woould all geta kick out of it. I like the idea of "episodic" campaigns. I always hated the shows where the only way you could tell time had passed was how bald the actors got. Sub plots should be explored, but after you've saved the world, what's next, really?
|
The real question that should be asked is: is the entire group ready for this story to end with these characters? That should be a group decision, not up to the sole descretion of the GM. After all, everyone around the table is creating that story...for the GM to pull the plug on that without the input of his/her players indicates to the players that they have no influence on the direction of either their characters or the story as a whole. I'm not a fan of that at all...it tells one something about how the GM approaches his/her role that i completely disagree with in principle and philosophy.
As ever,
ACE
I agree with you. It's one thing to say "I'm going to put the party up against a foe well beyond their ability" and another to say "I'm going to kill the PC's." D&D is a collaborative story. I'd be really ticked if a DM made a unilateral decision about what happens to the PC's.
Railroading by any other name...
|
|
Ace, as a champion for players rights, I appluad your desire to have full input into all DM decisions. Suck it:) If you wanna run the game, do so, until then, SHOOSH :)
It really is a player-dependent situation. I have 3 veterans, one noob, and one I'm not sure of. I think all of them will go "WTF?!?!?! Rly?" "Yeah rly." "OMG....WTF?!?!?!?" And then they will begin to make horribly powergamed new characters, which i will nerf by giving them a low point buy and restricting access to books :) Its a little tug of war I like to call DMing.
Remind me not to play at your table.
Its kinda funny you see it that way. 95% of the time, I leave plenty of lattitude for players to choose thier paths, and deal with the consequences. As you said, there is a difference between arbitrarily whacking the PCs and putting them up against something they can't handle. It's all about how its presented to them. It's not gonna be a "rocks fall, you die" scenario, where they feel completely out of control. Its more of a pandoras box kind of thing. Its the constant struggle between the DM as auteur or tour guide. FWIW, I have devoted players who tend to invite thier friends to play, so I have to turn players away after a while. My games are fun, challenging, and player oriented. But every now and then, I just like to screw with them ;)
|
Too contrived? I think it has an Amazing Stories/ Twilight Zone feel to it, and it'll draw them into the new story that much more. Thoughts?
Since you asked, I would absolutely hate that resolution. "And then you wake up" is the worst sort of hack-writer's gambit. It devalues everything the characters have been doing for "4-5 months". If you want to write a novel, write one; don't inflict this on unsuspecting players.
This is not to say that starting a campaign with a previous campaign as a part of the lore is a bad idea. I think that can work pretty well.
But killing the PCs by fiat is bad GMing.
Orson Scott Card has written (http://www.hatrack.com/writingclass/lessons/1998-10-29.shtml) that "the first paragraph is free". While the context is different, much the same applies to campaign design. The time to exercise GM fiat is at the start of a campaign; the rest should flow from the initial conditions.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
...then they will begin to make horribly powergamed new characters, which i will nerf by giving them a low point buy and restricting access to books :) Its a little tug of war I like to call DMing.
Okay, this is not the attitude to take. DMing should never be a 'tug of war.' You're not competing with the players, you're collaborating. They are as essential to the game's integrity as you are.
If you think that this event is going to trigger a negative reaction that will require you to place restrictions and limits on the player's new characters, DON'T DO IT. In all likelihood, they enjoy their current characters which, mind you, were (assumedly) made WITHOUT such restrictions. Imagine a video game where you get to fully customize your character, detail his features, clothing, abilities, and everything to your whim. You get him to look PERFECT and then you start playing. 2 hours in, a plot event kills him off, introduces a cutscene, and then takes you to a new character creation screen with many options missing. Maybe your character can ONLY be female now or ONLY a fighter or ONLY wear purple clothes. This is basically what you're talking about doing. Using a 'shock transition' like this is a delicate art. If your players are serious about their current characters, don't knock them off. If they are mature enough and haven't gotten totally absorbed into their current roles, then maybe you could shake it up a bit. Do so delicately, however, and make sure you're ready to reap the consequences without punishing your players.
|
Ace, as a champion for players rights, I appluad your desire to have full input into all DM decisions. Suck it:) If you wanna run the game, do so, until then, SHOOSH :)
It really is a player-dependent situation. I have 3 veterans, one noob, and one I'm not sure of. I think all of them will go "WTF?!?!?! Rly?" "Yeah rly." "OMG....WTF?!?!?!?" And then they will begin to make horribly powergamed new characters, which i will nerf by giving them a low point buy and restricting access to books :) Its a little tug of war I like to call DMing.
But smartassedness aside, I think they woould all geta kick out of it. I like the idea of "episodic" campaigns. I always hated the shows where the only way you could tell time had passed was how bald the actors got. Sub plots should be explored, but after you've saved the world, what's next, really?
and all the PCs should have rings in their noses to allow them to be led around easier. Or you could switch to an Eborin campaign and give them all free passes to the Railroad, errr, Lightning Rail.
Seriously though, if you are SURE that your players would enjoy this then I guess you could go ahead and do it. BUT!!!! I would walk out on a game group where the DM pulled this type of crap. I invest a huge amount of time and effort into developing a personae for my PC and spend 5 months developing motivation and personality quirks so that the DM can just decide it is all a campfire story! It is one thing to go down swinging in a battle but when you are placed in a situation where there is no escape and no chance for survival because someone decided that thier idea is more important then everyone else around the table's ideas, then I consider a line to be crossed that would undermine my trust in the DM to the point of me not being able to game with him anymore.You are gonna do what you want to do ultimately. You wanted opinions, so I gave mine. Take it however you want to.
I left a group with a DM who told good stories but was heavy-handed on the railroading aspect. I won't waste time with another group that this happens in. I like having a measure of control over my PC. Even in the manner in which you are planning to this, it still amount to "all your actions are for naught and you all die because I say so.".
Be careful with your group.
FH
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's interesting.
I think that I, as a player, would feel enough revulsion to leave a campaign if a DM had thrown a powerful lich against us and gone to the trouble of parading our inevitable deaths in front of us.
This isn't the GenCon Dungeon Delve. These are characters which your players have been trying to keep alive. That's not dramatic; it's tragic.
But.
If
(1) there was some "playing fair" hints thrown out by the DM. (For example, if the players were to roll up / build new characters a little while ahead of time, with the idea that they were all servants to a major bard...and if some sessions were to reference those "dormant" characters' studies...)
(2) the lich were to appear, and start threatening the party, and then the world were to fade out *without* walking people through theyr characters' murders
...I think the transition might work. There might be cryptic hints about the original PC's. Each of the new characters might be given some heirloom of the departed legends (maybe a magic item; maybe just a mundane quiver or boots, or maybe a fingerbone).
My suggestion:
You want the next campaign to be about throwing off the evil lich king, right? Well, here's what you do.
1. Come up with your plans and adventures for the rebellion. Lay it out as you see fit, plan as normal.
2. Give the party a small but real chance to survive their impending encounter. If they don't, then go along your current track of jumping to the future and having their descendants take up the cause against the BBEG, following the steps taken in part 1 above.
3. If they do survive, let them! They get away and spend some time just trying to outrun and hide from this wave of evil, which ends up conquering the whole world but leaving them in a position to emerge after the dust settles. They can then start the resistance movement and conform to your plans from step 1.
This way, you get to run a game where the party is fighting against the army of the evil lich king, regardless. You stand a good chance of pulling off your little bit of theatrics, but if it doesn't happen naturally, you can still go with things.
If you're confident that your players can handle and enjoy your original idea, then go for it, but I still think that they should have some say in the matter. It's just too big of a decision.
EDIT- Even if the party survives, you can ask if anyone would like to "switch" their character, since it's a big enough transition, and then work out an in-game way to explain the death or departure of the previous character and the arrival of the new one.
Let's get back to the initial post, and see what we have.
I like the idea, and think certain players would embrace it. Starting each campaign with "You all meet in an inn" works for some but I applaud you trying out something new. You're bound to meet some resistance but perhaps you (or we, with poster input) can come up with some ideas to minimize the damage of a TPK and instead get everyone excited about the storyline.
In your particular case, it's probably too late to input these changes but we can all draw something out of this.
Ideas:
- Start with prefab characters. The players will understand this is something new, and be more open to 'the twist'. Also, there'll be less personal attachment to the characters so the TPK won't raise as many hackles. Once the story progresses past that, allow them to create their own characters...now they'll feel like they've been given both the tools and a definite goal!
- Ensure 'the twist' comes relatively early, first session or two...long enough for the players to gain interest in the story but not invest too much into the initially killed characters themselves.
- Down the road make mention of any actions of the original characters that stood out (perhaps through Bardic knowledge, or discovered lore). This will add a little more credence to their previous characters' involvement. Who doesn't enjoy knowing they've played a memorable role? Also, the players will feel like they've contributed to the overall story & lore...which they are.
- As mentioned, be prepared for the characters to succeed where you don't expect them to...and embrace it. Save the campfire idea for another time if they manage to surprise you. Knowing that they're hugely overmatched makes for a great story too, as they attempt to raise the realm against this foe & gain in personal power.
So kudos for trying something new. Only you know your players well enough to judge if this will work. Just be sure before you leap, because a failed attempt that looks like a (blatantly cruel) railroad will cause them to lose faith in their DM, and his future campaigns.
Just my 2 cents,
J-
EDIT: What Saern said ;-)
I would be annoyed, and probably hostile. IF you're committed to making the choice, then I would NOT do it during the main session. Instead, I'd run the session short, perhaps up to the ancient city's revelation. Then I'd go for the reveal-- but setting aside D&D's normal system. Instead, play your ending out free form.
If they have to die, let them know that they have to work it into their description. Let them die with dignity and heroism... not just the damage count from an empowered delayed blast fireball. You might find the way they choose to die is so inspiring that it'd makes sense they'd still tell tales about it well into the future.
You know your players far better than we do. They're trusting you to keep the game fun. If you're sure you can end the game, keep them feeling positive about their dead character's hopeless struggles, and that they'll remain eager to return for future sessions, you might have a very memorable session.
Since you asked, I would absolutely hate that resolution. "And then you wake up" is the worst sort of hack-writer's gambit. It devalues everything the characters have been doing for "4-5 months".
Whooah! They don’t “wake up” at the end – those characters died honorably and their exploits have become legend. The new campaign starts with the young characters hearing the tale of how the heroes of old unwittingly unleashed the lich king. The prior 4-5 months have not been rendered meaningless; they have been transformed into history! As a player, how cool would that be to have your characters be some of the most important figures in the lore of your world?
But killing the PCs by fiat is bad GMing.
I agree, but as I (poorly) tried to point out and Saern did a far better job later, this doesn’t have to be a “you walk into the tomb and die” death by DM fiat. Yes, he is going to hit the party with something that is all but guaranteed to kill them, even if they run, but so long as he leaves the door open, even a crack, for their actions to affect the outcome, it is still fair play.
If the players really are already talking about their next characters, why not give their current ones a dramatic send off that also kicks off a new and exciting campaign?
Its a cool idea and if you run it properly you should be able to get away with relativley little enimity on the PCs part. After all there is always a small (or not so small) amount of anger with a DM when they kill a player. Alternativley you could have one of the PCs survive and then have him or her be telling the story to the player's new characters as they go out to defeat the lich king.
First off, forgive me forgetting my sense of humor does not often come across well in the written word.
Maybe I should have made this a poll? The opinions most vehemently against seem to be coming from posters who I have seen refer mostly to playing. Those for from DMs or sometime DMs. Please correct me (and I know you will) if I am wrong. Lets keep this civil shall we?
Ok, I understand both sides of the equation. As a player, I would have to trust my DM alot if he pulled this stunt. As a DM I thought it was a cool plot hook, and wanted to see what the reaction would be like, as AFAIK, none of my players post here. Also as a DM I have been answering a lot of questions about new characters, or hearing "If I die, I wanna come back as XXXXx", which usually means the players are getting close to being done with a story arc. Usually I would offer the option of a character swap, and in fact did this a couple weeks ago. 2 players expressed interest, but ended up not taking me up on the offer.
The 1337 spe4k above, and the following commentary, were mostly for fun. Apologies to those who got their panties in a wad. But it does hold true that there is a tension between players and the DM. Its a good, creative tension that leads to unexpected outcomes and good laughs around the table more often than not. I find it interesting that any mention of limiting character options makes some people foam at the mouth. I usually have fairly strict, and semi-restrictive character generation rules. Usually what happens is someone used to having to play off-the-wall characters ends up really loving their halfling wizard. My players know this before they ever arrive at the table, and have already agreed to it. It really does amaze me how often I need to reintroduce players to the PHB. It makes me sad, but I understand why this is.
And yeah, I do carefully tailor the point buys in my game to the power level of the game. Its kind of like the Old Republic Jedi vs New Jedi Order. They have the same potential, but because they lack the resources and training, they may not turn out as powerful as the old guard. Create your own golden age :)
And there is another external reason for this plot twist: I may have to end the game, one way or another, just because life is getting in the way. I hate it when stories and games just stop in the middle of something and you're left wondering "Well? What happened??!?!?!?!?"
I hope I never play at your table because that would just make me mad
|
|
Just to let you know, I am a DM and a player. You wanted opinions and then when people express an opposing view you belittle them by A.) Questioning whether they themselves are DMs and B.) By using demeaning terms to downplay their views (panties in a wad). If you want opinions from people then accept them. If you want only opinions that happen to correspond to your personal views then state it in your post so those of us who try to give you a broader perspective can let you leave your blinders on and stop wasting our collective time.
FH
|
|
Whooah! They don’t “wake up” at the end – those characters died honorably and their exploits have become legend.
The conceit presented by the OP was that right after the original PCs died, the players would be told that "the whole game has been a story told around a campfire by descendents of the humanoid populace". That's a stereotypical "and then you wake up".
The prior 4-5 months have not been rendered meaningless; they have been transformed into history! As a player, how cool would that be to have your characters be some of the most important figures in the lore of your world?
As I said, the idea of using a previous campaign as a backstory for a new campaign can work really well. The OP's idea was a bad way to get to that point. Several posters have suggested ways that might work; none of them were what the OP suggested.
If I found myself in the same place as the OP, I'd start with a conversation with the players:
"I'm getting the idea that you're finding the current campaign uninteresting. I have an idea for a way to end the campaign that I think you might like to try, but it's pretty radical. Are you willing to take a chance?"
This lets the players tell you if they are actually still interested in the current campaign, and also sets up the punchline. Crucial to this working, though, must be a chance for the final actions of the PCs to have a lasting effect on the campaign. Sure, maybe they're fated to die, but if they play well, they can act as a rearguard to save a "ragtag, fugitive" band that forms the core of the future PCs' society. Hunted down and killed like rats isn't the stuff of legend.
.... so long as he leaves the door open, even a crack, for their actions to affect the outcome, it is still fair play.
There's a difference between designing for a low probability of victory and designing for no (or nearly no) probability of victory. "I was thinking to reveal the history of said city, and then TPK them..." is designing for no probability of victory. That's not railroading, that's tying the PCs to the railroad tracks.
Legendary ends to campaigns are a fine idea, but organizing them requires a balancing act. If you fail your Balance check, the bottom is a long way down. I submit that the OP was heading for a roll of a "2".
FH, from the rest of your reasoned arguments I've read these last few months I've been around here, I'm kinda surprised at this response. Some of the responses posted gave me questions, and I asked them. I respect everyones opinions, even those of you who have already sworn never to play in my games. Your DMing style is probably much different from mine, thats cool. Why you gotta hate man?
DS: I see where you are coming from, and I agree the "waking up" thing is done. I had a DM use that one after wiping both of my PCs, and yes, I was pissed. The players always have a choice, i just didn't think i had to nuance it in the OP. I'm very familiar with Uncle Orson's work (Notice the log-in?), but thanks for the link. The way I figured it, some PCs would die, some would run away. All of them had a choice in what happens to them. Hell, one of them may even trade sides, though thats unlikely. What surprised and/or amused me was the vehemence of the arguements, not their content. I'm glad people have such a strong connection to their characters, it means they probably have a good group to play with, but to say "Oh, I'd never play with you." is kinda... meh.
Right. So the forum ate my earlier post and now I have to repost -_-
Anyway! Me being on the other side of opinion... if a DM pulled this stunt on me, properly of course, I would love him for it. This has the potential to be awesome for people that are in it for the story...
You just have to be careful...
Drop hints to the characters maybe, make them realise they are going up against something they will never ever vanquish.
But give them an IC reason to still do it.
Maybe it will give their loved ones a chance to flee from their village and go to relative safety? Maybe they can hold of the evil long enough to make a critical difference in the following fight and go from 'quick wipe of everything good' to 'serious battle, lost just barely by the good guys'
Next, make their deaths inspiring. Make these characters the basis of the resistance. Make them come back to life in song, in word, in text, statues, whatever. Make them the ideal of the true heroes; someone their new characters and everyone around them draw faith from.
And make their deaths good. If your players can't appreciate a good death... well. Dunno. They probably have their reasons. But if they accept that they are going to die for the greater good, that they are going to make a difference... if they go into that tomb knowing their deaths are at hand, and still decide to push through.
That's heroism. You can't deny that. And when they die, make it good. Don't whack em two round in; let them make a difference. Let them kill the second in command and ruin the chain of command; let them torch the strategic plans, let them blow up the all important weapon stash. And let them see, both before their death and in the months after, as they play their new characters, that their deaths and their final actions made all the difference.
After all; the game shouldn't be about winning or surviving. It should be about being a hero; about making the difference. At least to me it does. About creating a story that will be told about.
Ok. So I got dragged away. Didn't mean to do that. Hope you see and understand what I meant...
|
|
What Fake Healer said.
I've spent a lot of time GMing over the years, and (as Ace or Sebastien could tell you) have publicly supported strong GM restrictions on character creation and extensive house-ruling here in the past.
When you ask for opinions, though, it might be a good idea to actually listen to them; sometimes your initial read is a poor one.
Now, if you try it and it works really well, that's great. That would not change my advice if the question were asked again in the future, because I think the probability of it working well is very low.
The miracle of teh internets. Its cool, I try to parse what you are saying in light of everything that has been said before. We never know to whom we are speaking when we post like this, nor is emotional content we take for granted part of the bandwidth we use. I agree this is an idea that needs to be approached carefully, but I also feel it needs to be a surprise. I have been dropping hints that this story, with these characters, will not go on forever for the past couple weeks. I wanted to do it now for reasons mentioned above, and also so they don't get so attached they can't see past their deaths. And at least one HAS to get away, or where does the legend come from? And of course their deaths will be heroic. Last stand against desperate odds, the slimness of hope, the final crushing despair. Tragedy. We don't get enough of that in modern media. Gotta go out for a while, please continue to let em know what you think. Thanks for all the input!!!1
Wow... what a mixed bag here. Well, pulling htis off will seriously depend on your party. If they're tired of these characters and ready for a change, it might be a perfect segway. If they have a good deal of emotion invested, then it could turn ugly.
If you are the slightest bit unsure, hedge your bet. Let them play out the encounter. When they see they are outclassed they may decide on other options to thwart the BBEG. After all directly confronting an army with 6 people is not considered smart. Give them an out, or other options.
Personally, I like the idea and could see it working well. Nobody here knows your players as well as you do, so you are ultimately the best judge of whether this will work or not.
Ender- I've been in parties like that. There are just some players who love to abuse the rules or "Lee" them as my group calls it (in honor of the master of abusing rules and taking things out of context). So I can sympathise with you there. Fortunately since he left, anyone else found doing that was chased away with torches and pitchforks. ;)
First off, I wouldn't get player's input on every plot point, but getting their input on weather they are ready to "retire" the characters isn't a bad thing. On the other hand, there is an interesting thread here, so here are my ideas:
I wouldn't make it impossible for them to win. If you still want the lich to be powerful, give them a shot at finding an artifact to deal with him/weaken him, etc.
Another option is to have two "shock," endings. You can make your lich less powerful, more in line with the PCs being able to defeat him, even without an artifact or "trick" to lessen his power. Given them an even shot, then have the following two endings up your sleeve. Keep in mind, this assumes you still want to set up the potential for the "against the lich king a generation later" game.
Ending One: The PCs Win!
The story is still a story told around a campfire, but instead of it being, "this is how we got into this mess," the moral of the story is that, ages ago, the lich king was defeated by these heroes, and they should be an inspiration to those that will seek to defeat him in the modern era.
In this way, you still get to let them be the heroes, and even better, to be legends that will be talked about in the "current" age, but it still sets up that this villain somehow survived and took over, but his victory was set by a generation by the heroes.
Ending Two: The PCs Lose . . .
Then you can follow through with your original idea, and the PCs don't feel quite like they were set up for a no win situation, because the lich was tough by not unkillable. Since its generations later, the lich has had time to become even more powerful, and the players REALLY want their new characters to kill him.
Just some thoughts.
We don't break rules, we stress test them :)
|
|
DS: I see where you are coming from, and I agree the "waking up" thing is done. I had a DM use that one after wiping both of my PCs, and yes, I was pissed. The players always have a choice, i just didn't think i had to nuance it in the OP. I'm very familiar with Uncle Orson's work (Notice the log-in?), but thanks for the link. The way I figured it, some PCs would die, some would run away. All of them had a choice in what happens to them. Hell, one of them may even trade sides, though thats unlikely. What surprised and/or amused me was the vehemence of the arguements, not their content. I'm glad people have such a strong connection to their characters, it means they probably have a good group to play with, but to say "Oh, I'd never play with you." is kinda... meh.
Perhaps, then, what you meant isn't what came across in what you wrote. Don't take it personally if people react negatively to what you wrote rather than what you meant.
Doug's suggestions are good ones. I have my doubts, but if your heart is set on this, I would take his advice.
For my part, I've noticed a lot of talk about trust on this thread between players and their DM. If the DM decided to kill the PC's, I would probably consider that a betrayal of that trust.
I'm not saying that that would be true with every group, but that would be the case in the groups I've played with. Do with that what you will.