As I put together the initial details of what will be the 13th and final session for the group, I find the planning to be a lot easier (in a very morbid "it's all over" sort of way)

I get to show how lots of plots were connected (or not connected as the case may be) and there is a strong feeling of closure for me, mentally.

I do feel a little awkward because I am doing an artificial level increase for the PCs (something I don't like doing), but in doing so it will let the players get to play with lots of new goodies and it will also let the group end at the end of the heroic tier (level 10, which is arbitrary, but none the less, some people like that as an ending point) -- and why not go out with a memorable bang, right?

They'll have a tough set of fights ahead of them (that's all I can say in case the players are reading)... hopefully it won't result in a TPK!

fba827

Since session #13 will be the last one for the group, and by 'hard numbers' the party isn't quite 7th level yet, I offered two options to the players ...

Would the prefer to end the campaign at level 8 or level 10?

Sure, it's just an arbitrary number and simply represents how much 'stuff' they get.

Either choice has some advantages...

Option A: The campaign ends at level 10.

Advantage: From a very arbitrary definition, it seems 'complete' to say the campaign ended at the end of the 'heroic' tier.

Disadvantage: It will mean you get -several- new feats and powers in a short period of time, which could be overwhelming and may take some time to get used to your own character.


Option B: The campaign ends at level 8.

Advantage: It is a manageable amount of new powers to get in a short period of time (so you won't feel overwhelmed by radical changes in your character, while still getting several new things to try out)

Disadvantage: it's "fewer" new things to try out (when compared to Option A)


It's entirely a player-personal-preference about what they feel is manageable and yet still exciting, all in effort to end the group with a bang.

While I (the DM) have a preference, I can see the appeal of either choice. And I just want to end the group on a high note so that's why I offered them the vote/option.

If your group was currently at level 6 and offered the chance to end the campaign -in one session- would you prefer it to end at level 8 or level 10?

Edit: I've heard back from most of the players by now.. unsurprisingly, they all had different opinions for different reasons, but it was mostly what I expected to hear from the various individuals. Some strongly prefer one or the other, others are okay either way but prefer one or the other, and some are just indifferent. By taking a mathematical average of the continuum of votes, it comes out -very- close but a slight edge to one of them...

Now the trick is to come up with a 'clean' way to implement it all because I refuse to have them all just go for a lunch break and come back to 'work' 5 minutes later being multiple levels higher.

fba827

So the current group for this campaign is about to come to an end due to time and energy constraints on the part of the DM (me). I am hoping to have one to two more sessions (session 12 and 13), but then that leaves the question ...

How to wrap up plots and the group in a limited time when using a very player-driven campaign style?

I could bluntly direct them towards the secret hideout of the bad guys and have an epic fight with everyone they have been searching for ...

I could drop not so subtle hints about where to go and just hope that the party goes there

Else, I could just let the party continue to go as they please (as they have been doing up until now) and just when I need to say "enough we need to stop" have a way/excuse to have the various bad guys come to them wherever they are.


Whatever way I go, I want the players to continue a sense of control (whether they really have control or I am just making them think they have it is irrelevant)... and I also don't want to do anything that seems forced/unnatural since I have made a conscious point of making sure any/all actions on the part of the 'bad guys' fits with their schemes and motivations and knowledge -- they wouldn't do something stupid like attacking the PCs for no reason.

To add in to the mix, I have a player who isn't able to attend, as well as a guest-player to fill out the party due to the one absence. So factoring in a 'clean' way to have one PC not participate and have another PC meet the party and have a reason to stick with them are other things I'll have to work in.

I have told the players to expect one to two more sessions, though in retrospect the way I phrased it has led some people are expecting the next session to be the last one -- which wouldn't be a bad thing either considering my grad school schedule ... So a lot to play by ear to see how fluid/unobtrusive I can make it, but still end on a high note!

What have your "end of campaign AND end of group" sessions been like?

fba827

Last session turned in to an exposition-heavy and role-play focused session, not a single combat encounter, other than 2 rounds of intraparty conflict resolution when the new PCs and the old PCs did not trust each other upon meeting...

But that session did not go without casualties...

I say this in jest, but the greatest damage was done to the campaign story!

And now, my greatest challenge in planning next session is how to help the story recover from its damage.

Again, I preface all this by saying that I use the word "damage" in jest, but it is a close enough for the purpose of explaining.

You see, the PCs have drastically changed the direction of the campaign - they involved the king who has, in his own opinion, better resources and command to lead and handle the "meta plot situation," thus, he wants to take control of it.

On one hand, i don't mind at all - it is a natural evolution of the story.

On the other hand, it puts me in a difficult position in how to make it interesting and keep it PC-focused when they have now involved better equipped persons... it is much trickier this way. While I do have a vague idea on how to do it (I can't say it now in case my players are reading), that idea feels weak. I only hope that between now and the next session (a couple weeks away) I'll be able to figure how to better flesh it out in to a more solid plot center.

fba827

So it's time start planning out session 9. It won't be for a few more weeks, but we had two PC deaths last session..

So it gets to be the fun "introduce new PCs, find a reason that they want to stay with the group, and find a reason the group will want them to stay"

The two players in particular are usually good about having creative stories to tie things together, if they feel inspired. So we'll see how that goes!

I have been, inadvertently, revealing plot points much faster than I expected.

It usually happens when I have to start thinking up NPC conversations on the fly. So I am a bit surprised that the PCs are only at the upper end of level 4 and have already uncovered as much as they have. Hopefully things aren't getting too rushed for the players, but I'm kind of hoping that a chance to get together with new PCs will allow for a slight pause and breather.

Plus, the PC creation point is always exciting for me, as it gives me a chance to flesh out previously-untouched parts of the campaign setting. So, I'm looking forward to seeing how the new PCs work out in the story.

fba827

I had been putting off the posting of this design diary because it had too many inherent spoilers for my players by the topic alone.

There is still a minor spoiler here, but it is subtle enough that it won't make sense in the game until the players learn other information. so I'm considering it safe to finally post this.

Time Travel in a session - how I plan to do it

An artifact is in the campaign that allowed for some time travel. Because time travel can cause lots of problems and paradoxes, I had to plan ahead and give myself some guidelines about what could/would and what couldn't/wouldn't happen with this artifact.

Guideline 1: No meeting themselves
Ex: they can't go some where that they could potentially run in to themselves in the past.

Guideline 2: No meeting already known NPCs
Ex: They can't meet NPCs that they have already met in the 'current timeline' since that would raise the question of why didn't that npc already know them when they met in current time. This also allows flexibility for the PCs to do whatever (they can kill the NPCs and such) and it won't cause a problem that they existed in the present. Once they met them in the past, then later in the present they can meet them for the second time if need be...

Guideline 3: No meeting NPCs whose deaths would alter the game
Ex: No killing their great grandfather which in turn would undo their own birth or alter some plot point that has already developed in the present

Guideline 4: Visits to the past should be short
The longer in the past, the more likley the PCs (or I, the DM) would break one of the rules. I initially thought 15 minutes but finally settled on 1 hour for the trips before the artifact pulled them back to the present.

Guideline 5: The artifact has to do this in a burst effect so that there is a chance everyone stays together
Ex: I finally settled on burst 5 from the artifact. Splitting the party would cause other issues

Guideline 6: There is some cost
Ex: In this case, I decided on healing surges being absorbed from the activator to fuel the magic

Guideline 7: All time trips should have an individual story
Ex: I didn't want it to be random. So the artifact pulls from the past/ancestry of the user. This let me explore the parts of the PC background that the players wrote up. It also gave little side quests for further character development. And, yeah, it gave me (the DM) a cheesy excuse to assume the PC would care about the NPCs involved.

Guideline 8: No planar travel
This is a bit self serving, but I always suck at describing other planes, so I just set the fact that the artifact would only pull from history on the same plane. It kept variables down somewhat.

Guideline 9: There has to be some randomness
Another selfserving guideline. But I wanted to be as surprised as the players for where they ended up while time traveling. So there is a random roll involved that determines where they go from a preset list of possibilities. This also keeps it from seeming like I am playing favorites (for a PC or even for a scenario).

Guideline 10: Whenever possible, plant a tiny seed that sheds a little light on the present timeline.

Guideline 11: Advancing time
For spending an hour in the past, when they return to the present they have lost 5 days. This is kind of the 'cost' aspect of it. It allows for 5 days where the villains are able to advance their own plots without interference from the PCs. Big things could happen while they are away...


So basically, allowing them to travel back but isolated enough that they can't cause time paradoxes and a couple other campaign-specific guidelines.

I generated these rules specifically for this campaign and for this group of players.

Different rules might apply to other campaigns or to other players. if I didn't know my players at all, I wouldn't even attempt any sort of time travel unless it was to the far far distant past or something.

How about any of you, what have your experiences been with time travel in campaigns?

fba827

Thanks in part to previous planning, I have almost no planning to do for this next session. This is somewhat a shame because I have more time than usual for the next couple of weeks...

When I plan out sessions, I have a line of two of "thought" for given areas/situations/major players. And then I detail out one or two things that are most likely to occur based on where I think the players seemed interested in heading.

But last session, the players pretty much didn't do any of the things that I had detailed out... leaving all my notes from before to simply carry over.

What is a DM to do when he has so much free time for planning but nothing to effectively plan?

I could plan out even more things, but, the nature of the current campaign is rather fluid (lots of things are cause and effect and relational to previous events/encounters) so if I plan any more it would be wasted effort.

I guess I could (*gasp*) do something more productive.

fba827

I never actually hope the players will fail a given encounter, but as I put together some loose notes for next session, there is one encounter that I sort of hope they do fail.

Now I know that sounds like the wrong thing to say, and I agree, it is (or at least, that's not my style and mentality when I DM)! So I won't force the players in to failure or anything. But one encounter has a certain unique event that will happen if they do fail. And I have to admit, I had a lot of fun planning out that specific result and it seems cool on paper so I want to see it in practice.

I can't give details because some of my players have occasionally read this blog.

If nothing else, I can take this "cool idea" and reskin it and respin it for something later on.

We shall see what happens...

fba827

As I sit trying to draft out some notes for the next session, a couple thoughts come to mind ....

I annoy myself when I burn through info too quickly

Because of the large gaps between play sessions, by the time we play, I am pretty much bursting on my own information overload and end up giving out a little bit more than I initially planned. But that "little bit more" builds up. This last session ended up being are most "talky" of all the sessions so far. And while they have lots of clues they don't have all the concrete answers which led to lots of second guessing from all the extra info I ended up giving... so I know, based on last time, that I need to try and loosen up the triggers I have in place for various encounters (thereby making it slightly more likely to have a given encounter).

Players are catching on

At least I know I am on a somewhat right track because last session some players on "the right track" (eerily either spot on! or just close enough that they're almost there). But on the flip side, I know I haven't been too obvious because a couple theories (some from those same people that were spot on for some things) were still a little far out. So it is somewhat satisfying as I draft out notes for next time that I am not leading the PCs down the wrong path based on misinformation -- they're understanding what's been presented and available so far.

DMing is continuously progressive learning experience with each new group

Akin to driving, it is a skill you continue to advance each time you try your hand at the wheel. And with each new group (or in the case of driving, each new country) the laws are different as the group culture is different so you have your basics to fall upon but something about the way the rules and culture mix gives a different experience, thus starting your learning experience from a low point again.

In our last game, I inadvertently learned a lot about my game group (only been DMing them for 5 sessions and known them for less than a year) so in one way it was a little bit of a kick to the stomach but in another way, I can chalk it up as another learning experience that will let me know in the future what types of things this group does and does not like. Now if I continue this particular "mistake" that is when I can call myself stupid. But I hope it doesn't come to that since I never did like calling myself names.

I wish I had a DM-sounding board

Someone to bounce ideas off of or to tell me that a story element isn't as interesting or is more complicated than I think it is.

I could use ENWorld for it, but I know half my group actually comes to ENworld so I wonder how tempting it would be for them to 'learn too much' which would spoil some of the twists...

And, in addition to that, the long-winded backstory up to this point would either bore readers or bore myself trying to type it.

But I wish I had feedback on whether or not the inclusion of item A is an interesting hook or just annoying, and so on. If I get bold I may post it in the forums of ENworld with the usual disclaimers of 'my players stay out'

Edit: Okay, I actually did post the plot framework on a thread in ENWorld's Plots & Places forums. I got a couple ideas already from that.

fba827

Hi, my name is fba827 and I'm a D&D-holic....

Do you know how I know this?

Last night I actually had a dream that I was sitting at the game table, with the group, and we were playing my campaign.

This is weird for several reasons ....

1) I actually had a dream about playing a game. Really, I normally have other things to dream about.

2) Even if I didn't have a dream about what I normally dream about, was D&D and my game group really that persistent in my mind that I had to dream about them (and not one of millions of other possibilities?)

3) Perhaps scariest of all, in my dream, I was explaining the backstory to a certain plot element. And you know what, it was a backstory I had never thought of before and it actually works perfectly in filling a campaign-void that was previously unaccounted for, historically.

So not only did I not have a dream related to my normal dream topics, my dream was about D&D, and my dream actually gave me something I will end up using in my campaign (should the PCs ever follow that particular plot hook). I feel sick and dirty.

I feel bad about inequitable player-centered sidetreks.

So far, I have open possibilities (should the PCs ever follow it) for the PCs to stumble on adventures that somewhat center around them (or their PCs background). However, for one of the PCs, I have around 5*6 potential things that could happen centered around him. For others, I have 2-3. And for one PC, I can only think of 1, and that one is stretching it.

Now, it is true, player type is a factor here in that some players would enjoy that sort of attention to their individual PC's backstory and others wouldn't. But at the same time, I want to avoid heavy focus on that one particular PC who could (potentially) steal a large portion of the focus.

Ah well, maybe I will have more dreams about my campaign that will give me previously unconsidered ideas

What's a DM to do when there is the possibility of the group getting split?

While I can't say it will happen -- since I have left the choices entirely in the hands of the PCs, based on things that were said at the last game, it is possible that the players are going to trigger a certain event that could potentially separate them.

Note there are lots of 'maybes' involved (maybe they will do action A, and if they do maybe they will get separated) so nothing is certain. But I have to think about how to handle it if they do get separated.

1) I could hand-wave it by DM fiat and say PC A had a moment of hesitation while PC B had some inner spark ignited thus causing result C which benefits everyone in to staying together despite the effects of the triggered event

2) I could have the players make temp PCs, that way, in each of the two subgroups, the players would either have their own PC or their temp PC - allowing them to still participate as we switch from group to group. The trick here will be to try and give equal focus to both subgroups (which may be hard depending on what they do, but it's the goal none the less). I'd probably also have them use the quick and dirty NPC creation guidelines so that we're able to make the temp PCs quickly and also so that they don't feel "overly attached" with lots of effort for a character that won't necessarily be around long.

3) I could randomly (dice roll) between choice 1 and 2.....

4) I could ask the players ahead of time "if something were to happen to cause a nonlethal inconvenience to one or more of you, would you rather I hand-waved it, or would you like to just play it out" (still trying to figure out exact wording, but something along those lines)

5) I could have all the players bring a "back up PC just in case" and then use these back up PCs in place of the temp PCs mentioned in option 2. But I am not sure that would work well for my players... at least one is not a fan of trying out new characters. some would be annoyed if they put in the effort for the backup PC but it never got used. some would obsess over every detail and background, but I wouldn't want to get too involved in the background given the fact I don't want to say how or where these backups would be used as it would spoil the trigger-event. So I'm not sure this would be a good idea ...

6) I could just let it play out, in split groups, without the use of temp PCs. Though I would only do this option if I had reason to believe they would get back together soon...

7) Some variation / combination of the above choices... such as, if they end up in a 4-1 split, I'd have the single player make a temp PC for the group of 4 and give a lot of focus on that. And then take the single player aside later and and just do a quick narrative to catch his PC up ....

arg, who knows. Way too many possibilities here and all based on "What ifs...."

I am anxious to see what the PCs do

Since I never know where the PCs will decide to go, or what plot hooks they will follow, I have lots and lots of random story ideas floating around in my head (and in notes).

Some of them are location triggered (If they go to spot X, then Y will happen). Some of them are time triggered (On campaign calendar date X and time Y, Z will happen). Others still are people-triggered. (If NPC X sees player Y for the first time, then Z will happen). Of course, there are a couple variations to all that, or somethings might be dependent on two things (like a location and a time)

But my point in saying all that, I have so much floating around in my head on this. And, based on things previously said last session, it is possible the PCs will trigger an event that will reveal a major plot point (allowing me to be a lot freer in how much I tell the players and giving them something else to focus on).

Plus, they just did a major thing to one of their enemies. Thus, the enemy no longer will view them as an annoyance but rather as a threat that he must deal with.... (they are no longer the flea, but instead are now the dog withe rabies that he plans to shoot).

fba827

So I'm starting to make some rough notes for the next session.

As I do so, I have come to a couple conclusions

1) I actually like my players

They are a good group of people, no one is a big pain in the rear - we all (including myself) have our moments, but they are just moments and not status quo. They do have an interesting dynamic because there is more than one dominant personalty at the table, but over all they work stuff out.

2) I actually hate my players

Just kidding

3) I've ended up templating my session notes

Once I realized I'm maintaining the same groupings of topics in each of my pre-game notes, I just thought templating it would make life simpler... and you know what? It does. Sure, it would be a simple matter of retyping if I didn't, but somehow these seems a lot easier.

While I have the meta-plot in mind, I have the campaign open-ended at the whim of the direction the PCs want to go, so I never really know which compass direction they'll travel and which time-triggered or location-triggered events they will stumble across, so working off a template adds some conformity to the layout allowing me to glance down and skim a lot easier on game day.

fba827

So we just had our 4th campaign session.

Because I don't really know where the PCs will head each game, I basically just keep a loose idea of location-triggered encounters and time-triggered encounters.

This session, the PCs ended up walking to an area where I knew there was a fight the day before (in game time). Following the tracks they found from there, they were led to a goblinoid encampment. As said in the intro to this report, I didn't have the details prepared, other than knowing some basics (it was to be full of goblinoids, several lower level ones running around outside, and some tough ones inside guarding something who would not leave their post).

One of the hobgoblins I picked to put inside was so very tough, it could stun!

Stun is a very nasty condition and very out of line with the basic concepts of 4e.

I really wasn't expecting that condition to be imposed, but I just rolled it with. The hobgoblin also had a nasty ability to impose a -2 to all defenses on a target until the end of the encounter (no chance to save ends!). It became a tense combat but over all - there was actual fear on the face of the some of the players, and, considering the hobgoblins effects were all supposed to be fear based, it went well.

I hope stun does not show up often. At least in planned encounters that condition will be used sparingly, if at all - in general I don't like it when players sit around doing nothing, it's even worse when they have to sit around doing nothing and it's there turn.

fba827

So I am starting to put together a couple loose notes for the next game session (about a month away due to scheduling) and I find myself in a little bind.

I have a very rough mental outline of certain meta-plot events. The outline is continuously being altered based on PC actions, and they are burning through it faster than I expected (mostly because when I try to make up too many NPC conversations at once, I end up saying too much ). But long story short, they are at a point where I am hoping to have a certain important part of the meta-plot revealed in the next session or two.

Due to the nature of this campaign's style so far, I want to make this as much of a player-discovered revelation as possible, rather than just an NPC approaching them and giving them exposition out of the blue.

I have had one concept in mind, but it would involve a certain PC doing a certain something (my players may read this so I can't specify in case I do find a way to use it in some form). And, after a couple sessions, I realize that particular PC won't be in the situation to have it all "fall in to place." So this idea won't work well as imagined.

I have a couple back-up ideas, but they aren't nearly as fleshed out nor as clean as the initial idea. But I'll have to fidget them to make them work, maybe I'll eventually figure out a way to twist the initial idea with the back up ideas to make it all even more awesome

What are some ways other DMs reveal important plot points without resorting to an NPC just telling them (which is a valid method in its own right, I just didn't want that for this particular part) ?

On another session design topic, as I see the story play out, ...

I am regretting one aspect of the meta plot already, something that would have played out in a subsequent story arc after the current one the PCs are resolving.

I would just drop that now-regretted part of the story since the PCs are not actively involved in it yet, and instead expand the current story arc to carry further. However, I have already seeded and foreshadowed that other arc too much to just drop it, making its absence be too noticeable. And, also, since it was part of my initial concept, a lot of things make more sense when that other arc is included. So, I'll keep it in but will try and minimize the time spent on it. Or, who knows, my opinion of that other arc may change by the time the PCs get to it.

fba827

For our third session we had the always interesting experience of introducing the higher-level villain that the PCs will eventually need to kill.

My thought process was to have him leading some goblins, have him get introduced then leave for the goblins to occupy the PCs. I also gave him 3 in-game reasons as to why he wouldn't (or couldn't) stay to fight. But, of course, the PCs decided to pursue this new villain and the goblins sucky initiative prevented them from moving in time to delay the PCs (I squirmed inside when I made that goblin's initiative roll because I saw the open possibility for that chase scene to happen).

I am sure the players thought I was pulling punches, but, as said, he had some reasons why he wouldn't (or couldn't ) be more involved.

It also got me thinking, what would happen if I removed one of the constraints I had on the villain. It probably would have turned in to a TPK. But then, who would have been more pissed because of a TPK? The players? or me?

I mean, sure, the players would have been annoyed. But I think I may have been more annoyed -- I had JUST finished coming up with side-plots(events/tie-ins) for every individual PC. And, frankly, I'm way too lazy to want to do that all over again for all the would-be new characters this soon after doing it the first time.

fba827

One problem with having a lot of players who have real lives is scheduling.

In hindsight, I really should have stuck with my initial plan to make this more episodic (several loosely strung together adventures... think Justice League) so that we could pick up and go with whomever was free at the time - be it 2 players or 5.

After all, the purpose of this was to be "filler" in between our main campaign with the other DM. I guess part of me was swayed by what I presumed the players would enjoy more.. and, truthfully, I think they are enjoying serialized style more, but I have to wonder if the extended breaks between sessions makes this a worthwhile style or not for the current situation.

I have to say, I haven't been this anxious to run a game in a long while -- I am very curious to see where the players will go with the story from where they are. It's already been almost a month, and it looks like it will be another month before we play my campaign.

Of course, if I was actually working these days, then I would have other stuff on my mind and wouldn't be as mentally consumed about my campaign as I am now... so I guess it's good that it's slow now because if I do get a job then I'd have to slow it up to compensate... this way, everything remains "status quo"

fba827