Campaign Derailment

One of my favourite things about roleplaying games is that as a game master I will never be able to predict where the campaign will go. The players are quite good at surprising me -- they decide where to go, they decide what to do, and because I give them free reign, they can go on tangents I never expect.

For example? I had the PCs encounter a young green dragon disguised as a bandit - she charged 'protection' from anyone who goes through her area, and utterly destroys anyone who doesn't pay. So what happens? One of the PCs negotiates. They pay the tithe, but he offers to make her business 'legitimate' with the local city paying her for the safe passage of anyone going through, and the utter destruction of any threats that are coming through. Being an artificer, he's offering to craft her some things to help her, and to keep in touch with her in case she ever needs help.

... not something I'd expected.

In a friend's campaign, the group is supposed to be helping construct the equivalent to the Panama Canal, helping local communities benefit from it, and establishing a lot of goodwill to allow the colonies to construct it in the first place.

Then the PCs found an ancient city with temples to all the gods -- including some dead ones. The PCs learn how the goddess of the moon sacrificed herself when the aboleth dropped a meteor on the world.

And our Neutral Evil rogue was inspired to resurrect this goddess.  Instead, she was given the choice to attempt to ascend and become the new goddess of the moon. And she's grasped that quest with both hands.

Now we're off in Australia, New Zealand, the Moon, and eventually we're waging war against an infernal cult of Asmodeus in Europe. Then she tries to ascend. And then we might get back to South America and deal with things there -- which might take a year or more to get around to.

Not what the game master expected - we're on one hell of a tangent.

And sometimes, something you think is in the can goes unexpectedly. The heroes completely trounce your villain NPC before he can monologue and give the group some information important to the campaign.

Many GMs would suggest allowing the PCs to get the information some other way - finding the enemy's journals, allowing the enemy a dying speech, having some random NPC drop a clue.

Sure, you can go that route.

But what if ... the PCs don't find out at all? What if, because they were too good, or simply didn't allow the villain to talk, they're completely unprepared for what comes next?

And that's the thing I like - PCs can make mistakes, or get blind-sided. They're not perfect. This isn't a finely crafted book where everything falls into place tidily to move the story forward.

The PCs actions are the story, what they do, what they fail to do, what they discover, what they miss, it's what makes the game different from a book, or movie, or TV series. Unexpected things happen.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Balancing Act

Balance Balance might be the #1 thing talked about in gaming when you go into game theory and play. We talk about balanced rules, balanced parties, balanced encounters... Here's the thing. Mechanical balance isn't possible. Not really. Not without harming the game itself. Because for true 'mechanical balance', you need to have the mechanics control the decisions that the players make - right at character creation. It needs to control the choices players can make in an encounter. It needs to control the choices the characters make in the setting. It needs to control the choices the characters make as they level up. What gear they get. What bonuses they get. Who they encounter. What they can get from each encounter. What they can gather out in the world. The characters get pushed into smaller and smaller boxes, with less and less choices, all in the name of 'balance'. And what this does is make the character sheet really bland, and the mechanics really bland. You
Read more

Tainted with... Good?

You've heard the stories many times before. The land is corrupted and foul things rise up to torment humanity. A dark god rebels and spawns evil beings across the land. An evil sorcerer crafts an artifact that twists all who use it. Cool, fine, we've been down this path thousands of times. But why not the other way? A land blessed and divine things rise up? A god of light descends and spawns angelic beings across the land. A good priest crafts an artifact that guides others to the light? Consider the Story of Garg and Moonslicer But how would this be a 'bad thing', you might wonder? Where's the conflict that will drive the story? Well, that it needs to create conflict isn't a given. Not everything has to cause people drama and angst. But if you absolutely must -- it's unbalancing. A land with such an abundance of prosperity draws the attention of nations that don't have such benefits, and that can lead to war. Or you have a population that think they kno
Read more

It doesn't have to be about combat

Saw a post on FaceBook today, by a GM asking other GMs how to get the PCs to actually engage in combat -- the GM was upset that the players were going for non-combat solutions to their encounters. Personally? Let them have their non-combat solutions. If the PCs are anti-murder hobo, why not let them? Another GM wondered at hearing the players drive the story, and responded with, "what, I should just suck it up? My desires don't matter?" That's a pretty raw take of the situation, so here's my thoughts: 1) The GM's desires matter at the table. However... 2) The players drive the story. And their desires matter to. And what you need is equilibrium. You want combat? Sure, put in combat. There's some people who just don't listen to reason - they're there to have a fight, and trying to talk them out of it pisses them off more. Go for it. But if the players don't want combat? Then hold back on the combat -- let them have their roleplay. This is a role
Read more