"Party is predestined to die in the end." Good or bad idea?

[Reksew_Trebla]

I believe there is an AP where this happens, but I don't know how people felt about it.

I know in video games, it can be a moving ending, if done right (Final Fantasy VII Crisis Core, for example), but this isn't a video game.

Have you ever done this before, and if so, how did your party react to it?

[Claxon]

If they know how it's going to end as players it could be alright. Of course that might ruin it for you as a GM.

There are lots of places where this happens in various stories, but it's different because it's not [i]your]/i] character. And people still get sad and cry about those deaths anyways, even when they know it's coming.

So...I mean maybe it could work, but I wouldn't count on it.

[SheepishEidolon]

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

I believe there is an AP where this happens, but I don't know how people felt about it.

According to the reviews they HATED it. Capital letters are barely enough. It was:

Spoiler:

Finale of Tyrant's Grasp

Many players want to stay in control, and an inevitable PC death is a strong contradiction to that. You can increase the amount of subjective control by letting them know beforehand (as Claxon said). Further you can offer them a choice between life (with the BBEG escaping and doing horrible things, maybe to be caught later) and noble sacrifice (with the BBEG going down, saving thousands of lives).

[HighLordNiteshade]

It has multiple editions for different D&D versions, including Pathfinder, and the final battle is pretty much impossible, even if the party does all the "weakening" steps outlined throughout (without those there is a 100% chance of a TPK at the end).

Module name:

Rappan Athuk

[Ryze Kuja]

I think this is an egregious violation of player agency to have "predestined death". Generally speaking, anything "predestined" or "forced" upon a player is a bad idea and ruins their fun.

[TxSam88]

Horrible idea. Don't do it.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Any time the characters are predestined for anything it is a bad idea. The biggest problem is that if the characters are predestined to die at a certain time they cannot be killed before then. This removes any challenge to the game.

The first rule of gaming is that the players will always do something the GM had not planned on. So the only way to really guarantee this outcome is to stack the deck so far in the GM favor that it is completely obvious what is going on. That kind of heavy handed playstyle never goes over well with the players and should be avoided at all costs.

The closest thing to this that can work would be to setup something where the players willingly sacrifice themselves to defeat the BBG. Even this is difficult to setup, and only works with the right characters. Maybe the paladin will be willing to die to defeat the BBG, but don’t count on the rouge to be willing to die for the cause.

In short bad idea.

[Theaitetos]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea; it all depends on how the story is told and framed. A world of mystery & magic allows all kinds of way to make sure the players enjoy the experience without feeling bad about it (sad != bad).

For example, the players can have actual characters and the dying characters are some others, who are controlled by the players: through a dream, some kind of possession, astral/time travel, experiencing memories, ... the actual characters (who don't even need to be played much at all) survive, while the players play (primary) characters, who die in the end. The experience could be about a similar party in the past (e.g. Order of the Stick > Order of the Scribble), or about ancestors of the current party, or some kind of divine/fiendish test. If the game has many sessions, the initial framing of the story fades into the background, only to be resumed at the end when the primary characters die and the actual characters return to being played.

Let me tell you about a group of rebel agents, who stole the plans of the Death Star...

[Reksew_Trebla]

I take it that this is a bad idea, so I’ll make sure to avoid doing it. Thank you all for your input. I appreciate it.

[yukongil]

I'd just let it be known to my players that I have a story in the game I want to run and the game it self has a finite time table, meaning that once this arc is done, so is the game and then we can start a new game.

The story itself would determine if they would know ahead of time of the predestined deaths.

[marcryser]

I'm going to disagree with (nearly) everyone here and say that this can work out. If characters have to sacrifice themselves to achieve a goal that they find important, that is a great possible ending to those characters' stories.

I'm not suggesting that it should be used as the end of a long standing campaign where the characters learn that they were sacrificial lambs all along. But as a chapter of an otherwise ongoing story arc or connected campaigns, this could be very useful for story telling.

Look at how Rogue One fits into the Star Wars story line.

If you were using several different sets of characters and groups to tell an epic tale of how a small city grew to be the center of a huge empire, or how a single family acted over generations to topple the Infernal Chelaxian powers, a story about a group of characters who died fulfilling a mission that allowed the story to continue could be viewed years later as a great memory.

But maybe that's just me.

[Ryze Kuja]

Theaitetos wrote:

Let me tell you about a group of rebel agents, who stole the plans of the Death Star...

I think this would be one of the only exceptions to what I said earlier. Doing a Rogue One story where you know you're going to die, it's impossible to save yourself, and your mission is to transmit the stolen Death Star plans to the getaway car despite overwhelming odds, would be pretty fun.

@OP; if you want to do a "predestined death" campaign to the kin of something Rogue One-ish, I think that'd be cool. It would require consent of all the players first though, some people might not like to play a game like that.

[Claxon]

Something else that could be interesting is:

The entire party is acquainted somehow, and are all dead. They have been raised by an entity to stop something specific. It's real bad, and failure to stop it would result in their deaths (again) anyways.

Something is special about them that will allow them to defeat the evil, but requires their deaths to work.

If the party knows that going in, it's way easier to stomach.

That said, it's not really all that different from the rogue one scenario.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Depends on the group and how it's handled. Some people are fine with the idea of dying heroically to achieve their goals. As long as it is framed correctly instead of feeling forced, many people will be happy to die for the greater good. Case in point, my girlfriend played Shackled City, and there is a point where one PC is expected to sacrifice themself for the greater good, and the entire party had a mad rush to be the one to give their life for everyone else.

One of the questions often asked at L5R character creation is "how will your character die?" Samurai are expected to give their life for their lord if the circumstances dictate it. The important thing is to let the situation leading to their death unfold in such a way that death seems the best option rather than being forced on the players when there are better options available.

The point is, if you feel railroaded into dying without much option to do anything else, then it won't be fun. If you feel as though it is a heroic sacrifice that wins the day, it can be awesome.

[Artofregicide]

It depends on the group and the game. Beer and pretzels types will revolt, as will the "never railroad" camp. Personally, it *can* work and when it does it can be really impactful. Personally, I really like both adventures mentioned. Good doesn't always triumph, and evil forever always lose.

The real stickler for me is "predestined". As in, no matter what you do, it happens. Impossible odds? Give them to me! Character death and TPK's? Love them (especially as a player). Complete lack of player agency? Pass. Especially as the GM. I play to find out. Sometimes mortals go up against a god, and despite having no right to do so and no coddling from the GM, still come out on top. Mythic not included.

I'm just as bored with the idea of "you win regardless" as "you lose regardless". If everything is predestined, there's no conflict or tension. If my character or the party dies, I want it to happen on their terms.

I guess the distinction is "the party loses against nigh-impossible odds" and "rocks fall, everyone dies".

[Quixote]

Sigh. Another batch of "don't touch my agency" cries.

Player agency means that your decisions matter. That they effect the game/setting. As long as you've got that going for you, you've got agency.

Now, how much agency you have can be variable. And anyone saying it's 100% or you're doing it wrong is just as wrong as anyone else claiming bad/wrong fun.

For some people, ttrpg's are collaborative storytelling experiences. And for those people, I think a well-told tale where the protagonist's deaths are all but assured can be extremely moving and satisfying.

I won't hesitate to plant seeds of emotion or motivation in a player's character. "You've come so far. All your life, you learned to look out for yourself. To line your pockets with gold, fill your cup with wine and let the priests and the fools worry about the Eternal Struggle. But...these people have stood by you, suffered sword and dart and flame and spell for you. And now you must choose: do you forsake them, or do you stand by them, and fall with them?" I've never once had a player claim they felt I was railroading them. They usually feel like I'm giving them some time in the spotlight with some growth and cool internal conflict and that it's one of the things they'll remember most about the game.

So sure, I say you can do it, if your storytelling is up to snuff. It's a pretty advanced trope, but I don't think you specifically need to warn them ahead of time or take into account what sort of character they are (some paladins are self-righteous jerks, and some rogues are truly noble souls who have never stolen or lied). Just consider what sort of game the player will want to play and can accept. It takes a blend of maturity, complexity and subtly to enjoy/play/run this story.

[TxSam88]

Players get emotionally attached to their characters.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario (i.e. no win scenario) is very distasteful for players.
Even with player buy in, the idea that nothing they can do to prevent the death of their characters death will leave a bad taste with most players.
Even a cool scenario like Rogue One will be distasteful to the players who think they can find a way to escape but still succeed. (i.e. railroading the death is a bad idea).

If the players can be creative/lucky enough to find a way to escape the inevitable death, then it should be allowed. So, the destined to die scenario is just something you don't do.

[David knott 242]

The Pendragon game has a campaign plot whose premises include the fact that all PCs will die in a final battle if they didn't die sooner -- and the campaign ends with that battle. The best that any PC can hope for is to be the last PC standing.

This ending is foreshadowed in the family generation step of the game. All sorts of fates are possible for the PC's father and grandfather, but by the time the PC begins play, his father and grandfather are both dead and the PC has inherited their property, glory, and responsibilities. Also, the first PC is not expected to survive until the end of the campaign -- indeed, players are encouraged to start families so that they will have a stable of potential replacement PCs available.

But I suppose this sort of thing works best in a game designed with such PC mortality in mind.

[Claxon]

It can absolutely be fine, but you need to tell the players it's the plan and make sure they're cool with it.

If they're not generally ok, don't do it. If it's just one, consider asking them not to play in that campaign.

[yukongil]

you should probably always plan for the inevitable deaths of your PCs. If for no other reason, it lets you prepare for the eventuality when they all decide to sleep with the obviously shapechanged Night Hag or something else equally as dumb that you were sure nobody would fall for...

so having a plan for that is a good thing, you can make it means something, or at least have a good roast ready for when they lemming charge to god-Lich or whatever.

[Quixote]

TxSam88 wrote:

(a lot of sweeping generalizations and assumptions)

You say "most" players at one point in there, so I will expand: "most" also means "not all".

TxSam88 wrote:

So, the destined to die scenario is just something you don't do.

I will concede that it is not generally advisable and is not something you can just shove into any game with any group in any situation. But...that's literally every trope, theme and narrative device every in the history of ever. So it's not exactly a useful piece of advice.

It can be done. I've done it, more than once, and to varied levels of success ranging from "Decent, But Not My Best Work" to "This Will Be THE GAME These Players Will Talk About For The Next Decade At Least."

Know your players. Know your game. And know how to tell a story.

To get back to the OP, did you have something specific in mind?

[thorin001]

As a general rule it is a bad idea, but there are a few circumstances where it can work. My favorite use is as a prequel.

[TxSam88]

If you really want to play a game where the point is for everyone to die, play Paranoia.

[Sysryke]

TxSam88 wrote:

If you really want to play a game where the point is for everyone to die, play Paranoia.

Or Call of Cthulu

[Quixote]

Or Pathfinder.

A system will have it's strengths and weaknesses, of course, but the right approach from a storytelling perspective matters a whole lot more than the system in most cases.

An epic showdown that ends in heroic sacrifice? That could easily be d20. A downward spiral of helplessness and loss that ends in death or worse? That would most likely be better suited to CoC, Dread, etc.

[Sysryke]

I wasn't critisizing any system in particular, at least not intentionally. I was just always told with CoC, you play expecting to die, repeatedly, perhaps always. Between that and my general feelings towards the lore, I've never really cared to play.

I pretty much agree with all your posts on this topic. Good storytelling can make anything patatable.

On the flip side, there's no hope, you're going to die no matter what, is why I personally hate most of modern zombie cinema . . . . . but that's a tangent.

[Warped Savant]

Some players are up for the idea. It's hard to find a whole group that would be okay with it. Having a way to let them know in advance can help (as the AP mentioned above does), and making sure it's not a "you specific 4-6 PCs have to give up your lives" and instead have it be "the 4-6 PCs will have to sacrifice themselves at the end" means that if a PC dies during the quest the new one still has to die at the end.

It's not the lack of agency that sucks, it's the "and at the end of the story your character dies" that some people might get really upset about. Even though the game is finishing people typically want a "and they lived happily ever after" or "and they continued going on quests and being awesome" endings.
But some players see ending a campaign as the end of the character... some people aren't worried about living happily ever after and the noble sacrifice at the end is something they really like.

[ShadowcatX]

Bad idea. If you predetermne the outcome why are you pretending to play a game where other people's choices matter.

[Peg'giz]

I think if it come out of the blue it's a bad idea as it removes the control from the players.
But if you really want to got this route maybe put a spin on it:
Somewhere around the mid of the campaign foreshadow that the characters will die (but succeed) when they finally face the BBEG (make it clear that this will be in the far future, not "if you face him now").
This way the players can plan for it, maybe find a way around it (Maybe only one of them have to sacrifice himself etc.)

Avengers Endgame comes into my mind here.
Why? Tony knows the hole time how the final battle will end for him thanks to Dr. Strange. But when this moment comes he did it by his own CHOICE not because it was inevitable, which gave it even more importance).

Or another "noble sacrifice": Warcraft - Bolvars sacrifice at Icecrown

Of course I would always talk to the players before that, maybe even in a one-by-one if you see one players character would make a perfect "noble sacrifice" (This could even be a perfect ending for a character and even more impactfull if the other players didn't know it)

[Neriathale]

We’re playing a homebrew Pathfinder game at the moment which had an ‘everyone dies’ prequel. The prequel characters were pregens, the members of our clan inn the previous generation who were killed in a treacherous attack by our enemies, thereby giving the ‘real’ characters a revenge plot for the main campaign.

Even knowing this, one of the prequel characters bugged out and ran away in the big fight because the player couldn’t face loosing the character. They are now playing the son who is trying to overcome the family shame that his dad deserted his post.

[Peg'giz]

Or even better then the "show them before" would be:
Show them before, let them make plans to avoid it, then when the times come all of their high-level plans fail, death seems to be inevitable. But then something/someone from a very early adventure (even before you revealed their destiny) shows up and "pays his dept", not rescue them, but given them the opening/time they need to change destiny (maybe with the same actions as in the "prophecy", but with another outcome).

[David knott 242]

And that surviving character serves another function, as he has surely been telling the actual PCs that tale of enemy treachery for their entire lives. But you probably had other ideas along those lines until that slight derailment from one of your players.

[Reksew_Trebla]

Well, now I’m getting mixed opinions on this. Hmm. Maybe I should reconsider it.

Quixote wrote:

To get back to the OP, did you have something specific in mind?

Not yet. I’m just brainstorming ideas right now.

[PFRPGrognard]

I say it's pretty damn terrible to predetermine the ending no matter what. There's no other way to look at it.

[Ryze Kuja]

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Well, now I’m getting mixed opinions on this. Hmm. Maybe I should reconsider it.

Quixote wrote:

To get back to the OP, did you have something specific in mind?

Not yet. I’m just brainstorming ideas right now.

My advice: Generally speaking, this is a bad idea. BUT-- if you're going to do a Rogue One-style adventure and all your PC's realize and consent that they WILL in fact die but their story is gonna pwn and bards will tell their tale throughout all the taverns in the land, then go for it.

[Kasoh]

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Well, now I’m getting mixed opinions on this. Hmm. Maybe I should reconsider it.

Mass Effect wrote:

Put three humans in a room, there will be six opinions.

[marcryser]

All of the people complaining about loss of player agency... what about the agency of the GM to give the players an experience that they DON'T ANTICIPATE?

I've run a campaign where I took the characters to 6th level and then left them all at a huge cliff hangar. I then switched to another campaign in the same world and led them to a huge cliff hangar and 'abandoned' that one as well. My players were starting to get really irritated that I kept bringing in new things without finishing anything.

The third campaign also got to 6th level. They all started guessing that I would again abandon everything. Instead I allowed them to use all 3 sets of characters to resolve all 3 cliff hangars and unite the campaigns. The three parties then got combined and re-organized to go after three separate pieces of the campaign's goal.

That was MY agency, not theirs.
That was MY creative goal for the story telling, not theirs.
If I had let them have their way, none of that epic campaign would have ever happened.

The player's FUN is important, so is the GM's.
'Player Agency' is making decisions that affect the immediate, making decisions in the moment. GM Agency is the reality that they have (get) to deal with. GM Agency IS the adventure.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Giving destiny a swift kick in the teeth is never a bad thing. Just saying.

[David knott 242]

I think that playing out a fight is what gives players the idea that they have agency. If you tell the players before the campaign begins that their parents were killed in battle by Orcs ten years before the campaign begins, they would see that as a campaign premise and not a denial of their agency. If you decide to play out the fight, be prepared to make adjustments to this backstory.

You could also have predestined future events that do not affect the campaign. For example, if you set your campaign in ancient Azlant, it is most likely predestined that their homeland will be destroyed in Earthfall, but that might be irrelevant to your campaign if it ends well before that event.

[Claxon]

That's a good point.

If you run it the campaign, don't make the final fight an actual combat. Your players might have the illusion that they can win or change fate. Don't give them that.

Make it cinematic, so that it feels different. The fighter holds the entryway on their own, the rogue is backing him up, the cleric is buffing, while the wizard uses their magic and knowledge to operate the artifact McGuffin. It has two settings, kill everyone in 100ft and destroy itself when activated, or kill everything within 500 miles. The team is attempting to prevent a chaotic evil cult from activating it and using the death to fuel a ritual to bring their dark lord to the plane and cause even greater destruction. But the only way to destroy the artifact is for the heroes to activate it themselves (with the cult on their heels) and die in the process because it specifically requires 4 souls to voluntarily die, their souls destroyed in the process to fuel the artifact.

[ShadowcatX]

marcryser wrote:

All of the people complaining about loss of player agency... what about the agency of the GM to give the players an experience that they DON'T ANTICIPATE?

I've run a campaign where I took the characters to 6th level and then left them all at a huge cliff hangar. I then switched to another campaign in the same world and led them to a huge cliff hangar and 'abandoned' that one as well. My players were starting to get really irritated that I kept bringing in new things without finishing anything.

The third campaign also got to 6th level. They all started guessing that I would again abandon everything. Instead I allowed them to use all 3 sets of characters to resolve all 3 cliff hangars and unite the campaigns. The three parties then got combined and re-organized to go after three separate pieces of the campaign's goal.

That was MY agency, not theirs.
That was MY creative goal for the story telling, not theirs.
If I had let them have their way, none of that epic campaign would have ever happened.

The player's FUN is important, so is the GM's.
'Player Agency' is making decisions that affect the immediate, making decisions in the moment. GM Agency is the reality that they have (get) to deal with. GM Agency IS the adventure.

If you're such a poor GM the only way you can surprise your party is by taking away player agency I wouldn't enjoy your game.

ETA: I don't mean you personally.

[Ventnor]

Warped Savant wrote:

Some players are up for the idea. It's hard to find a whole group that would be okay with it. Having a way to let them know in advance can help (as the AP mentioned above does), and making sure it's not a "you specific 4-6 PCs have to give up your lives" and instead have it be "the 4-6 PCs will have to sacrifice themselves at the end" means that if a PC dies during the quest the new one still has to die at the end.

I dunno. I looked over the Tyrant's Grasp Player's Guide again, and while there is some mention of survival horror themes it doesn't really explicitly say "your character will die by the end of the campaign. It is not a matter of if, but when."

[Ssalarn]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

I believe there is an AP where this happens, but I don't know how people felt about it.

According to the reviews they HATED it. Capital letters are barely enough. It was:

** spoiler omitted **

Not as much as you might think. Average it with the Amazon reviews and you've got-

13 5-star Reviews
5 4-star Reviews
5 1-star Reviews

So there were significantly more highly positive reviews overall than negative reviews. The real moral of the story here is- have a session zero with your players and make sure they're bought into the game's expectations. I've happily ran characters whose careers ended with scripted deaths, and I've played with people who instinctively rebel at the very idea that anything that happens to their character might be influenced by anything other than their decisions and the dice rolls. You've just got to make sure everyone is on the same page about what the deal is.

[marcryser]

ShadowcatX wrote:

If you're such a poor GM the only way you can surprise your party is by taking away player agency I wouldn't enjoy your game.

ETA: I don't mean you personally.

Player agency is getting to determine what their characters TRY to do given the reality that the GM establishes.

As the GM, I decide if it rains on them when they camp.
I decide when a war happens in their hometown.
I decide when a Demonlord goes on a rampage in their neighborhood.

Player agency is deciding to buy a tent next time they're in town.
It is deciding to fight on one side or the other (or neither.)
It is deciding to stand in the door of the church and barring the demon's path to the innocents inside and earning a death worthy of song and story. (Or, I guess, teleporting away like a craven dog and being remembered for an entirely different reason!)

P.S. You clearly did mean me personally, since you were responding to my post and quoted me in it.

[DeathlessOne]

Ventnor wrote:

I dunno. I looked over the Tyrant's Grasp Player's Guide again, and while there is some mention of survival horror themes it doesn't really explicitly say "your character will die by the end of the campaign. It is not a matter of if, but when."

As someone who's playing through that campaign, I can surely attest to you that it was certainly NOT in the guide. When I found out about the conclusion of the adventure path (spoiled, i havent finished it yet) ... Well, I was not amused at all. Seeing how deadly the adventure path so far has been, I can see how the entire campaign is keyed towards prepping the characters for this eventuality.

But... It gave me time to reflect on how such foreknowledge would effect how I play the game, and more importantly, how knowing such a thing would effect my character. It is quite amusing how similar my acceptance of the situation mimics the stages of grief. It gave me a very real look into the mind of the character I play, and helped me understand how they would react in the situation. I play a venerable Aasimar Barbarian who has started to reawaken to the youthful vigor of his youth and adventuring days, and seeks immortality through magic. He is no stranger to death and, to be honest, is walking hand-in-hand with it as a Mortal Usher (prestige class).

I know how he is going to react. He is going to look at his (MUCH) younger party members, young adults that he has watched grow up (saw THEIR parents grow up), and his eyes will settle on his own multi-generational great-grand daughter. He will feel sadness and sorrow, knowing that their lives are going to be cut short.

He will walk out to meet the Tyrant alone, if he can. He will slap aside the spells being thrown at him, devour the magic that hits him, sunder the defenses before him. He will unleash every ounce of rage and unspent fury within his body and ride that blast of positive energy into oblivion, dragging the Tyrant with him all the way. Heroes are not born. They are forged in the fires of suffering and from sacrifice. He will be the Hero they need, and then finally get a chance to rest his weary bones.

... Damn, I love this character.

[SheepishEidolon]

Ssalarn wrote:

Not as much as you might think. Average it with the Amazon reviews and you've got-

13 5-star Reviews
5 4-star Reviews
5 1-star Reviews

Hrm. Did you check out the descriptions of the Amazon ratings? I'd rather stick with the Paizo ratings. Well, actually got a chance to skim the book, and compared to the excellent first book it seemed mediocre. The end could be changed with limited effort, though, and IIRC Paizo even provided a sidebar to let the heroes live on.

[Ssalarn]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Not as much as you might think. Average it with the Amazon reviews and you've got-

13 5-star Reviews
5 4-star Reviews
5 1-star Reviews

Hrm. Did you check out the descriptions of the Amazon ratings? I'd rather stick with the Paizo ratings. Well, actually got a chance to skim the book, and compared to the excellent first book it seemed mediocre. The end could be changed with limited effort, though, and IIRC Paizo even provided a sidebar to let the heroes live on.

There is a sidebar for the heroes surviving yes (and they're brought fully into the loop about the fact that Book 6 will kill them in Book 5). Given that and the fact that some of those reviews on the Paizo site were created by spam accounts with no posts before or since, I kind of view them the same way I look at Yelp reviews from people who drop a 1-star and then never do another review again, but everyone's got to make decisions they're comfortable with.

I actually tweaked the ending myself last time I ran it, and instead of being destroyed I had the PCs each get their own "rebirth" montage as their souls were rescued by servants of Pharasma and given a new chance at life in the bodies of some of Absalom's fallen defenders with their memories of the conflict rapidly fading. That became their direct link into the characters they're now playing in Agents of Edgewatch. Since half the party was excited about a heroic death and the other half didn't like hearing that their bodies and souls would be destroyed utterly, it seemed like the right move to split the difference and use it as a segue into the next game.

[Warped Savant]

marcryser wrote:

All of the people complaining about loss of player agency... what about the agency of the GM to give the players an experience that they DON'T ANTICIPATE?

I've run a campaign where I took the characters to 6th level and then left them all at a huge cliff hangar. I then switched to another campaign in the same world and led them to a huge cliff hangar and 'abandoned' that one as well. My players were starting to get really irritated that I kept bringing in new things without finishing anything.

The third campaign also got to 6th level. They all started guessing that I would again abandon everything. Instead I allowed them to use all 3 sets of characters to resolve all 3 cliff hangars and unite the campaigns. The three parties then got combined and re-organized to go after three separate pieces of the campaign's goal.

That was MY agency, not theirs.
That was MY creative goal for the story telling, not theirs.
If I had let them have their way, none of that epic campaign would have ever happened.

The player's FUN is important, so is the GM's.
'Player Agency' is making decisions that affect the immediate, making decisions in the moment. GM Agency is the reality that they have (get) to deal with. GM Agency IS the adventure.

Your players must really trust you... I would've stopped caring about the GMs stories after the second campaign appeared to have been abandoned and I would've offered to run something for the group instead of being being a player in another campaign that I didn't think would reach a conclusion.

[ShadowcatX]

marcryser wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

If you're such a poor GM the only way you can surprise your party is by taking away player agency I wouldn't enjoy your game.

ETA: I don't mean you personally.

P.S. You clearly did mean me personally, since you were responding to my post and quoted me in it.

I was responding to your first paragraph about DM agency, not your long side note about your particular game that wasn't on topic.

[Rysky]

Ssalarn wrote:

The real moral of the story here is- have a session zero with your players and make sure they're bought into the game's expectations.

This.

There is in fact a difference between players, and characters.

If you have something like this scripted/intended bring it up to your players before the game. Not at the beginning, not at the middle, not the end.

They can have their characters react how they need when the information is revealed to the characters at the time it occurs.

If the players are pissed and want nothing to do with it, well, you just saved yourself and the group plenty of misery and fighting and time wasted on a campaign that would leave a bitter taste in everyone's mouth. You don't want that.