I was wondering, would it be bad to create a campaign were the PCs are supposed to fail at the end, instead of saving the world like it always happens? Not exactly 100% chance of failure, but an almost certain chance of it happening.
For example, an evil god has ascended and want to destroy golarion. The PCs could battle against his evil forces during the campaign, and in the end that said god will be just one step to destroy the entire world, but the pcs cant defeat him. Instead, they sacrifice themselves in a battle against his lieutenant, managing to protect a small part of the population while all the other living beings are anihilated.
To me, it seems like it would be an interesting way to end the campaign, while also giving the opportunity for the next campaign to be in a post-apocalyptic golarion, were the remaining races united themselves to fight the hordes of evil creatures to survive in a destroyed world!
There are varying degrees of failure - the god could just have won and destroyed everything, but I find it more interesting when there's space for another campaign to continue in that setting.
What you guys think? I particularly dont like the idea of good always defeating evil, so im attracted to the idea of an interesting campaign with a bad end (not bad in terms of not enjoyable, but in terms of the good guys being defeated), although im not sure about what players in general think of this, so it would be cool to see your opinions!
|
For me this is one shot stuff. I think an entire campaign knowing that fact would take something away IMO. Also, see this.
|
personally, I wouldn't like the "sacrifice myself" part unless via sacrificing myself I STOPPED the god.
(or, if I was a cleric, why wouldn't my diety help me?
paladin- matyr in name of my god. "what? I didn't do anything?"
this if of course, assuming level 20ish.
that being said, being allowed to create new PCs after the catastrophe and -slowly- reclaim the world that was lost seems intriguing.
I was wondering, would it be bad to create a campaign were the PCs are supposed to fail at the end, instead of saving the world like it always happens? Not exactly 100% chance of failure, but an almost certain chance of it happening.
Define... Not exactly 100% chance? Predetermining things in a campaign commonly ends in sorrow in my experience. Players shock you, and people enjoy their free will and ability to make things happen in my experience.
That said, not a big fan of it personally.
By the way, I personally wouldnt tell that to the players, as I dont find it interesting when you know how something will end, even because the chances of failure dont tend to be 100% (but very close for this example).
Kinda like how the Emperor and Darth Vader succeding even though he is the "Chosen One"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems too much like railroading to me. I think you could pull off something pretty similar though. Set certain conditions that must be met in order to defeat/weakened/prevent the evil god from destroying the world. Make those conditions difficult for the PCs to accomplish.
Then let them play and determine the results. Maybe for each condition that the PCs are able to accomplish, one part of the world is spared or something. This will give the PCs some hope, and something to actually fight for.
If you're going to basically say evil wins, I'd prefer to skip the first campaign and start the second one (post-apocalypse). That sounds more interesting then slogging through a near-guaranteed complete failure.
I recomend against knowing where it ends from the start. It is hard to keep an open mind as a GM if you know the end of the story. IMOP.
My observation, at least from the original post, is your scenario seems unlikely (at least in Golarion).
The whole idea of some great undefeatable evil that would destroy the world if left unchecked literally resulted in all of the good gods and Asmodeus working together and imprisoning Rovagug in the center of the planet. A relative upstart godling doesn't likely have a chance at being a true threat. Of course it is your world, and you can make the story however you like. I just personally don't buy into it.
I also would hate this level of rail-roading. If it was pretty much predecided I would rather you just tell an interesting story than play a game that would ultimate feel very unrewarding.
I thought of setting a game up where there was a relic "like a teleporter" that made an Astral Projection to some other plane. You could use some device like that and have the characters make the choice to sacrifice themselves on that plane, but their characters wouldn't die(just loose 2 levels). For the real danger you could have some silver cord-cutting denizens lurking about that they would have to deal with from time-to-time.
It could be an easier sell - Just a thought.
By the way, I personally wouldnt tell that to the players, as I dont find it interesting when you know how something will end, even because the chances of failure dont tend to be 100% (but very close for this example).
No, no no no. Ok, this is one thing that I have been told several times is the most important thing to have a good relationship between GM & players: expectations. If your players are expecting a game of heroic fantasy, save the world stuff, and you literally give them NO chance of victory? That's going to cause some friction.
See, this type of thing I could see in a call of Cthulhu game, because the game comes with the expectation that you cant "win", at best you can delay the inevitable.
On the other hand, there's a pretty big expectation in pathfinder (& d&d & similar games) that the players "should" win. Your players would NOT be expecting this at all, and I know that I, as a player, would resent a GM that had so betrayed my expectations. If you want to play hardcore, play hardcore, but WARN THEM that that's what you want to play.
Honestly, if you want to play the aftermath (post-apoc golarion), just play the aftermath (which could be quite interesting). Dont bother having your players get invested in a game & characters if you're just going to slaughter them all (and if you give players no choice but death or "heroic sacrifice", it aint much of a choice). (I'm currently frustrated with a GM who did something similar, in that he said "well, the current game doesnt interest me anymore, so let's play another system, new characters, etc.!" which frustrated me a LOT because I was quite invested in the character. Not quite as nasty as slaughter, but still.)
Using a "the good guys lose" as a one-shot or short-intro adventure to a longer campaign dealing with the consequences could be interesting. Otherwise... I don't think I would enjoy ending a campaign, failing utterly, when the DM had that as the plan. The DM can *always* win if he chooses to - that's not the point.
|
I don't think players will react that well. I prefer the notion put forward in Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow and Thorn Trilogy, where
or then their is Jaquline Carreys God Slayer, and Banewreaker where
I had one where the players did fail.
The mission to stop the BBEG was started by them finding a journal from a mage who had been dead for eight hundred years, asking them to access his inner sanctum and stop a plot to release a demon lord. They gain access, releasing the demon lord in the process, and kill it before it can escape. This took quite a few adventures.
Then they find the mage's final journal, in which he admits he set the whole thing up to begin with and it was all part of a plot for him to aid another demon lord in stealing the territory of the one they killed.
Why do I bring this up? Because that is more the kind of campaign where it works. One where they're manipulated, doing what to all appearances is the right thing, and are in fact aiding an evil plot in being completed. No gods involved. No need for the players to be rescued from certain doom. No need to doom the planet.
This is very much a question that depends on your gaming group. If you all sit down ahead of time and decide that this tone is what everyone wants, go for it.
Back in 2nd Edition, we played through the old Rod of 7 Parts boxed set. In the final encounter with Mishka the Wolf-Spider or something, the character's were totally outmatched and fell like flies. They had assembled the Rod at this point, a weapon their enemies wanted to get their hands on.
When the fighter died, one other character used the Resurrection power of the Rod, knowing full well that this would cause the Rod to shatter to 7 distant corners of the world again. Don't get me wrong, they totally died, all of them, but in the end they did thwart the big bads anyway. To me, that was an awesome end, but it wouldn't have been any fun if I had planned it that way.
|
Instead of predetermining that the party will fail... which kinda sucks to do... have a trick up your sleeve for what success actually entails.
Old campaign I ran many moons ago involved the group of heroes working to thwart an evil organization, fulfill a prophecy and rescue a trusted companion... that all culminated in them being essentially used to inadvertently allow a greater evil to be released into the world, having bypassed many of the protections that would have prevented evil beings from doing so, the heroes were able to "succeed".
They did see a prophecy fulfilled... but their understanding of it was flawed.
They did truly thwart the plans of a powerful evil organization... one that wanted to use the power of the greater evil to their own ends.
They did rescue a missing companion, a noble act of self sacrifice for no personal gain or reward, under no form of compulsion... and released the one being able to summon... "Heaven's Fury, Radiant Fire, The Godslayer has returned"... the imprisoned Paragon Fiendish Radiant/Red Dragon that was imprisoned within the earth.
The group did not fail, they were not defeated... in fact the newly awoken God-dragon ignored them, and his formerly imprisoned high priestess/false companion thanked them for their service... but in their efforts to be heroes, to do the "right" thing, they were able to be subtly nudged here and there to free a greater evil.
Along the way there were all the usual challenges... they really did have to face great peril and evil foes... and choices that they made that could have changed the course of their actions, however, the players really pushed for the epic hero aspects instead of the super cynical, and many of the subtle clues were either misinterpreted or ignored as "attempts to distract them" from their quest.
Sure there were many crestfallen expressions when the realization sank in, but no one felt like they were forced, railroaded or worse, like the outcome was predetermined for them to "lose". Plus, since they did not lose, they were not set up to die, it didn't just cause a shake up of the campaign world, but it let the players have a whole new focus with the same characters.
Interesting opinions! Seems like I will have some trouble if I decide to make a campaign that way. What you think of this scenario I was planning:
The main villain will be a angel. He was corrupted by powerful forces, becoming cruel and evil - the opposite of everything he once was. He fell on the abyss, quickly growing stronger as he defeated other demons, as he possessed the power to absorb the strength of those who he defeats.
Eventually, the angel managed to defeat his first demon lord, absorbing its powers. With it, he went to kill other stronger lords, acquiring even more power as each of them fell to him.
At some point he will have defeated the strongest demon lords and
combined the strenght of all of them in his body - a power that could outmatch even a god, becoming the "ultimate evil". With it he united the entire abyss, as no demon could challenge him anymore, and went to conquer the other planes.
The gods started to fear his growing influence, and a few tried to stop his advance. Still, it was too late, and the first god died by his hand, becoming a part of the angel's powers. Those who tried to fight were defeated just like the first, and one by one the planes were being conquered.
Eventually he gazed over the mortal plane, and his endless armies invaded to conquer everything, his lieutenants commanding them as he personally invaded other parts of the multiverse. The PCs will fight against his forces of demons/devils/corrupted beings, and unite the entire world for this war, receiving the help of the remaining gods to resist the invading forces.
In the end they will have defeated the enemy commanders, attracting the angel attention. Then, he will send his most powerful lieutenant to destroy the resistance - Iomedae, the only god who he spared on defeat, corrupting her essence so she would represent the opposite of everything she once was, serving him.
The PCs will, with the help of the remaining gods, have their final battle against her. They wont be able to win this fight, but with their sacrifice will defeat her, preventing one of the continents from being corrupted by the evil forces.
Then, the next campaign will be in that said continent, were the PCs will try to restore the other regions who were corrupted in these events, while finding a way to prevent the angel from causing further damage!
This is mostly some ideas Ive been toying with for the next campaign, a lot of things will happen in between these events too. It got a bad ending, but maybe the pcs can find another way to finish it, who knows.
Using a "the good guys lose" as a one-shot or short-intro adventure to a longer campaign dealing with the consequences could be interesting. Otherwise... I don't think I would enjoy ending a campaign, failing utterly, when the DM had that as the plan. The DM can *always* win if he chooses to - that's not the point.
I'm not sure if that's everyone's cup of tea either. I know some of the horror stories I've read are of someone doing that and the players not taking it so well. In particular I remember one instance where they used the player's old character's against them, and that tends to breach some people's comfort zone or feelings of ownership.
Instead of predetermining that the party will fail... which kinda sucks to do... have a trick up your sleeve for what success actually entails.
That ones also really debatable actually. Its again, being set to fail. Its not everyone's cup of tea. It can also feel like the GM is misleading you, even if your not trying. Which is... Less than stellar. In a game where you then fight the next evil its not so awful as one where your old characters die horribly for the sake of your storytelling.
It might to set the expectation that your setting the next campaign and keep an open mind to player's attempts to shape the world in the first. Again, players can shock you, and planning ahead can end pretty badly.
Another alternative is a game where...even if they win, the fallout is horrific... a very high level mythic party stopping a CR 30 nasty threat could wipe out cities in the process...
That might be best done in another game actually. Pathfinder doesn't have great rules for destroying a city or fighting in a way that causes a lot of fall out. Not that you can't, just a suggestion.
Here's an idea, start them with the prologue being that evil wins then the campaign starts in earnest in post-apocalypse golarion.
PCs start level 15ish, called upon by *fitting org or deity* to stop this vile scheme. Then over the next few sessions, they go about trying to stop the enemy, by thrusting them into the middle of things you have some wiggle room about how the plot went prior to them starting.
During the campaign, let them get the sense they were called too late, but they have a chance. In the end, maybe they managed to save a city, or group of people, but tragically died during the ordeal in a noble sacrifice.
Now they start the campaign, with new characters in the immediate aftermath. They can see what their other characters accomplished, and their level of success influences the current campaign.
Please, please, please don't start a campaign where your players are destined to fail. Don't set insurmountable goals, don't run a game where the PCs' efforts are going to all be in vain.
Because a story like that totally sucks from the POV of the protagonists, and it will end on a total bummer for everyone-- including you.
Seriously-- pulling something like this can end real-world friendships! And, yes, I have really seen that happen.
If you want to run a grim and gritty game, put your cards on the table at the get-go. Run something like the Midnight Campaign Setting. Tell your players that the campaign is going to be really dark, really hard, and that the odds are NOT in their favor unless they are particularly smart, resourceful, and willing to make sacrifices. And then, please keep an open mind and let your PC's actions have a real, and positive, effect on your game-world.
Because nothing sucks like realizing that your character had been a patsy all along, and had been set up to fail by someone you trusted.
Don't do it.
For me, the final encounter is always the one with the greatest chance of PC failure.
There's no prep wasted if they go down, and it raises the stakes dramatically.
The PCs will, with the help of the remaining gods, have their final battle against her. They wont be able to win this fight, but with their sacrifice will defeat her, preventing one of the continents from being corrupted by the evil forces.
I get the feeling that you're already set on doing this "PCs auto fail," and you're just looking for confirmation from people. So far the vast majority of people are telling you its a bad idea.
Second, I know very little about Golarion (I never use it), but creating some super NPC that trounces through all of the well-known Golarian gods seems like really poor form. If you want to make the ultimate evil, more powerful than all of the known ultimate powers, it would seem to make more sense to create your own world and own gods.
This really feels like an inexperienced GM or a GM powertrip scenario. And I pretty much think GMs should be given a lot of leeway, so that should tell you something.
|
|
Players (not necessarily characters) have to know that they are going to play this kind of campaign from the beginning.
Also they have to know that even if they "fail" in the end, what they will do will have consequences. Maybe making the end less painful, or the rebirth better, or even ensuring that there actually is a rebirth.
Such was the very theme of Rage The Apocalypse after all and it was quite a popular game.
Here's an idea, start them with the prologue being that evil wins then the campaign starts in earnest in post-apocalypse golarion.
PCs start level 15ish, called upon by *fitting org or deity* to stop this vile scheme. Then over the next few sessions, they go about trying to stop the enemy, by thrusting them into the middle of things you have some wiggle room about how the plot went prior to them starting.
During the campaign, let them get the sense they were called too late, but they have a chance. In the end, maybe they managed to save a city, or group of people, but tragically died during the ordeal in a noble sacrifice.
Now they start the campaign, with new characters in the immediate aftermath. They can see what their other characters accomplished, and their level of success influences the current campaign.
Reminds me of that Vecna adventure, where you start out as the "big name" archmages (Bigby, Tenser, Mordenkainen, etc.) and get a TPK at the opening... then transition over to the overmatched heroes trying to "make it right".
There was this idea on one of forms where your pcs were in a lose lose situation (surrounded by a evil army bout to die) all they had was a scroll that turned them all to stone (in any manner they chose) then "decades" later they were brought back to life and found out they were worshipped as gods and had to help free the civilization from the tyrannical rule of thier oppressors,
Make it like this sort of give them the chance to win (maybe a mythic lvl or two) then when the god almost has them mostly dead another god from golarion snatches them out puts them in a demiplane where a minute is a couple decades in the other world,
Then have a couple side adventures in the demiplane then start out the new adventure with the lvl 20 chars (maybe missing mythic tiers maybe keeping one) then run a mythic campaign where the players can rebuild the world (started with thier own town) then eventually they can kill/banish/destroy the other evil god
Help them out give them a mythic godbane weapon (drops god to a gestalt lvl 20 or a char with 20 lvls in two or three classes)
Then no to minor railroad and pcs don't feel cheated (they can chose to make a new chris instead of running old char)
Just my rambling thoughts
I was wondering, would it be bad to create a campaign were the PCs are supposed to fail at the end, instead of saving the world like it always happens? Not exactly 100% chance of failure, but an almost certain chance of it happening.
I could see potential in a 300 style ending were the players die gloriously in battle. So long as the players know that this battle is most likely the last battle these particular characters will ever have and it's about how many foes they can drag down to hell with them.
What I would do as GM is make sure the ill-fated characters are very high level, have the opportunity give epic speeches, tie up loose ends, and die gloriously. Also I would make sure they all have leveled underlings/followers who could pick up the fight and avenge them through a campaign of their own.
It would be tough to pull off and you would have to be one hell of a storyteller with players who are good enough to rise to the occasion.
-MD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For this idea, I think the intro to Vecna Lives! is a better plan. Give the PCs a group of pregen high-level characters. Maybe even the iconic Pathfinder heroes. Set them a one-shot adventure where they confront a lieutenant of the BBEG trying to save the world from apocalypse and get brutally slaughtered in the process.
Then collect the dead guys sheets and hand the characters back theirs. It's time to start the adventure in your post-apoc setting. The characters look down at their little 1st level character who are going to challenge a BBEG who's lieutenant just toasted these high-level, iconic heroes as if it was easy. And since the BBEG won and took over most of the world, he's going to be even stronger.
The players will feel something they rarely feel in a game; genuine dread.
Failure works better in the middle. As an example, consider Final Fantasy VI.
Twists at the end are interesting, though. I see someone already mentioned Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn; there are plenty of other examples, from books and games to films and TV shows (season 2 finale of Buffy, anybody?).
Still, always plan for the outcome where the PCs succeed despite the odds, just as you should always plan for the PCs' failure.
I have a similar idea for a game I want to run. But I think giving the party a choice in how they fail could make them think they've won. Giving the players a choice makes them feel in control while they spiral down as long as it's not down a set of railroad tracks.
Here's where my current ideas end and new ideas begin. Once they inevitably fail start a new campaign... in hell with the goal of escape and revenge. Deal with demons and devils, crawl/climb/bribe/cheat/steal any way you can to get out and get revenge on whatever sent the pc's to the abyss. It gives you as the gm an excuse to explore new territory and even turn pc's into various demons or devils if you want to be kind. Let them crawl out and when they do make it too late. Now this gets the players almost mad or broken. The sad ones just lie down with all that effort gone to naught. The angry ones go and release the ultimate evil again just to beat it up and ensure that this never happens again.
|
|
I think the one case I've considered running a "the party is doomed to fail" adventure, it would have abeen a one or two session deal that would actually serve as the prologue for the actual campaign. And I'd probably be handing out blank-slate pregens and warning the players not to get too attached.
|
It's bad storyline to force PCs along one path no matter what.
Besides, the sacrifice self has been done too often in novels; by Tasslehoff Burfoot for one :). It makes for a good story, but terrible campaign. Good campaigns don't force ANYTHING; your PCs are the hero, and should be able to choose their method of victory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The “prologue campaign” can work well as long as the players know about and are invested in the idea and trust the GM to run it well. If done correctly, such as with the players helping set up their characters’ ultimate sacrifice, it can actually be very cool and invest the players in their characters' legacy.
Your plan, however… falls very short of that.
Not telling the players that they are destined to fail as they are forced to waste days of their real life lives on a pointless railroad is not conducive to maintaining real life friendships. Lack of agency is a great tactic when writing novels / short stories / scripts – not when writing campaigns.
As mentioned by someone up thread, your better option is just to tell the story of what happened before you start the next campaign. That way you may actually have players for part 2.
If your goal is to run an alternative to the “good always wins in the end” campaigns, have the players play the black hats that are assisting the big bad that will rule your world entire. That way, they at least have a sense of agency and feel invested in what they may be trying to undo in your second campaign.
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about the party plays evil characters who aids the coming of the apocalypse? Then the post-apocalypse campaign can have the players roll up new characters...
With their former PCs as the big bads!
That is actually one of the stories in the "Worst thing a GM has done to me" thread if I remember correctly.
|
|
What you guys think? I particularly dont like the idea of good always defeating evil, so im attracted to the idea of an interesting campaign with a bad end (not bad in terms of not enjoyable, but in terms of the good guys being defeated), although im not sure about what players in general think of this, so it would be cool to see your opinions!
Honestly, it sounds like a great game, but better suited to a story game than Pathfinder.
Polaris is an example of a FANTASTIC one-shot story game in which the goal is to figure out not if but HOW your character and entire civilization falls. You should check it out!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player character focus and contribution is critical. Unless you have a group that has specifically expressed an interest in this ultimate conclusion, you should amend the focus. Players that realize their chances of success were gimped in favour of perpetuating a storyline will feel used and relegated to 'passenger' status. And rightly so.
Several solutions have already been posted, and I will second them.
1) have the failure at the mid point of the campaign, allowing the pc's the opportunity to contribute to 'fixing' the failure. This means that you can't permanently kill the characters and you must allow those characters to play on. New characters will seem like a new campaign.
2) set the campaign with an opening cut-scene or a short one shot adventure with disposable pregen pcs, then allow the player characters to run the post apocalyptic campaign.
3) allow the players to contribute to both sides of the campaign. Let them run a set of pcs for the evil side to influence the success of the apocalypse, them let them roll new pcs to run the post apoc campaign.
I am about to start a campaign with my players that uses the third mechanic. With full player knowledge we will be running Way of the Wicked and then following it with a resistance campaign to overthrow the tyrants and reclaim the land for good. The fundamentals of the recovery campaign will be based on the choices the pcs make in WotW. If the players prefer their evil pcs may not be the BBEGs for the campaign, and instead I will use the WotW NPCs or the cohorts of their evil characters. It'll be up to them.
TL:DR
Never let a good story lead you to relegate the players to a position where their choices have no influence on the game. If you want that - write a book. RPGs are primarily about allowing players to be a part of the story and make meaningful contributions.
|
|
By the way, I personally wouldnt tell that to the players, as I dont find it interesting when you know how something will end, even because the chances of failure dont tend to be 100% (but very close for this example).
This is something the players should know. Knowing the ending is not bad if you don't know how they got there. Then it becomes a matter of finding out how it got to that point.