I haven't exactly been AROUND all that often of late, mostly because real life is currently quite busy kicking my ass. But also because I am just BRIMMING with ideas.
Specifically, a super-adventure.
I think it's about time we had one, don't you? I've got a big ol' honking monster in the works, and it will take at least four (4!) adventuring parties to take it down (not literally a big monster, but a monster of an adventure). Problem is, I am far too busy to run four adventures simultaneously.
Simply put, I'm asking for help. At least 3 DMs (in addition to myself) will be needed.
Of course, there will be much brainstorming and meeting of minds. I'm just putting it out there to gauge interest.
__________________ “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
- Jack Kerouac Lorik Oh god, the temptation
Nothing against Don, but a super-adventure is a very dicey and tricky thing to do in a Living campaign. The last (and only) super-addy every tried in a Living World practically killed Living ENWorld 3.5.
Super-addys are difficult to pull off in a living world for several reasons:
- Coordination is *very* difficult. Different posting speeds between games makes this near impossible.
- Its very fragile. One addy dies, the rest become weaker. This is especially true if one DM is running multiple of them. In the doomed mega-adventure in LEW, one DM had 3-4 games and when they disappeared (stranding 16-20 players), that was *bad*.
- It ties up most of your PC population all at once. One nice thing about non-synched games is that they start/end at their own rate. If you can solve problems 1 and 2, you still have a very empty Tavern while a large portion of your player base is tied into the same super-adventure.
I understand the appeal of a mega-adventure, but having seen one blow up spectacularly (I am not over-exaggerating the damage it did to LEW), I'd be very cautious about trying one again. Nothing kills the momentum of a group like a massive potential blow-up.
[Ph8008, Boddynock, and a few other from LEW can also comment on the doomed Mega-Adventure]
__________________ stonegod -- LEB judge and spawn of Khyber since 2005 (Blog)
Well, at least Don isn't talking about running more than one adventure so the risk of suddenly stranding a large amount of players is no bigger than with any other adventures.
So I guess it depends just what you you have in mind, Don. Any details?
The idea? War. War has come to the Transitive Isles. An unnamed location will be attacked by a massive host of evil badguys, and a call will be sent out: someone, ANYONE, help us. Please.
As is the case with war, there is simply too much to do for one single adventuring party. The PCs who agree, whether it be out of civic duty or simply the hopes of looting some riches in the process, will be divided into squads and sent to different key locations in the front, each of which will have a unique problem that needs to be solved.
This isn't as much a super adventure as it is four adventures that go on in the same place at roughly the same time against a common foe.
__________________ “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
- Jack Kerouac Lorik Oh god, the temptation
This is basically 4 DM agreeing to run 4 independants adventures agains the same backdrop.
The trick then is to find enough way to connect what's happening in each adventures to make this more than a gimmick without making the adventures dependant on each other.
I agree with stonegod, I wasn't around for this, but it is hard enough to get a mini-adventure to see it through to the end, let alone a mid length adventure x 4 ...
The idea is great and I thought about it when we were kicking off LEB, but I know Graf liked it (and now disappeared). stonegod's caution is well founded and I'd be hesitant to try it here.
Add my voice to those shuddering in horror at the memory of the complete disaster that was LEW's mega-adventure.
Complete. Disaster. Seriously, it would have been less destructive to the living world if the dracolich *had* returned and conquered the world, enslaving all life as we know it.
I don't think it's theoretically impossible to succeed at a project that attempted to provide some coordination between three or four thematically related adventures run by different DMs, as long as the limitations of PbP and the living setting are kept firmly in mind. But such a project would be very, very difficult, and quite risky.
The only way I can think of for it to work is to treat it as a world-spanning plot event, that effectively changes the tone of the setting, possibly permanently, but not catastrophically. For example, in far-off Valhyr, an einherjar warlord (*) and his shaman finally get backing from a powerful demon, who gives them a way to reliably get their longships to Daunton and back. They start raiding parties. This puts Daunton on a wartime footing. Taxes are raised, diplomatic missions to the Imperium and the Empire of Jade are undertaken, asking for help. Taking out the warlord, shaman, and their demon backer could be a long campaign arc with side adventures involving several DMs and whatnot, but if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be the end of the setting. Daunton would still stand, though changed in character somewhat. There would still be a need for adventurers to keep the crazy cultists and the vengeful fey under control, and to chase down Lauto's debtors and so forth.
(*) I may be butchering setting elements; sorry. I didn't look this stuff up.
The keys, as I see them, would be:
involve multiple DMs from the start. If one DM tries to do the whole thing themselves, that's a disaster already. No running 3 adventures at once; frankly I think 2 is too many.
Don't try to coordinate the start of the related adventures. Let them start independently and organically, like other living world adventures.
Keep the scope limited. No world destroying. If the PCs fail, or give up, or simply disappear, there should still be a way forward for the setting. Maybe not a pleasant one, but we should still be able to play and have fun.
Keep the individual adventures short and limited in scope. Think of a TV series consisting of 20 half-hour episodes, not an epic trilogy of three-hour movies. This just isn't the medium for it.
I still think this isn't necessarily a good idea....
Yep, I'm another one who's still counting the cost of the Mega-Fiasco on LEW.
I suspect that such wide-ranging plotlines work when you've got a single, consistent authority base (I'm thinking of Living Arcanis here) to drive them but are not particularly well-suited to PBM.
Besides, the Transitive Isles has been running for - what? - one year? That's barely long enough to run a single adventure or perhaps two on PBM, in my experience. So I'd suggest that there's still plenty of scope for exploring the setting in its original form, without seeking to turn it on its ear.
Anyway, I'm a complete newcomer to L4W, so I don't have a lot of cred in the Isles ... but the fact that you have a bunch of people like stonegod and covaithe and me turning pale at the mention of such a thing might give you a clue as to some of the problems with super-adventures.
I think I'm going to go away now and have a nice cup of tea! Or possibly a large scotch.
Retired PbP Characters:
Alton Highlea: Halfling Quest - Rooting Around
Andarin Startoes: Turtle Soup
Coraine Vagrius: Rhun’s Temple of Elemental Evil
Elyan Kolodah: CB’s Sunless Citadel
Hunolf Hjordsson: Sunless Citadel
Jimmy Masters: Deadlands: Savage West
Kelloran: Night’s Embrace: A Touch of Darkness
... And All The Rest ...
Well you don't need me to repeat what Stonegod, Covaithe and Boddynock said concerning the LEW Super-Fiasco. That said, I have two points to mention which are repeating things already said. One which Don said already and one which Stonegod brought up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Incognito
...it will take at least four (4!) adventuring parties... At least 3 DMs (in addition to myself) will be needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonegod
- Its very fragile. One addy dies, the rest become weaker. This is especially true if one DM is running multiple of them. In the doomed mega-adventure in LEW, one DM had 3-4 games and when they disappeared (stranding 16-20 players), that was *bad*.
So right there is a vote of confidence from me that Don is already thinking ahead of the curve of where we were back when this came up in LEW. Covaithe covered several other points as well that would make it possible I believe to pull off such a feat.
*Only one adventure per DM. (This could still get broken if the original DM quit and the game judge had to pick it up when they were already a DM for one of the connected adventures.)
*Make sure they can start and end independently. If any of them rely on any others time-wise it won't work out.
Those are the big two for me. Tying up most of the population of adventurers at once wouldn't be a big deal if it was four separate adventures. And if this mega-adventure is going to work it really needs to be just four separate adventures linked thematically. If it can be that, then I think it could work. If the adventures are not directly connected, then it won't be an issue for a DM of one of these adventures to have a character playing in one of the others as well.
So there are my thoughts on the matter. I look forward to other discussion and to see what happens. If it could be pulled off, I'd love to be a part of it. Don't know if Id have time to DM one of the adventures, but as a player I'd love to be involved!
Last edited by Phoenix8008; 22nd July 2009 at 03:49 PM..
One advantage we have here is that a mega-adventure could involve the destiny of a Far Land rather than the entire setting. It could involve the downfall or transformation beyond recognition of the Kingdom of Jade or the Imperium, or the Valley of Bone, or if that's too much we could create a new Far Land just for the mega-adventure. (You know, I've owned module X4/X5 - Master of the Desert Nomads/The Temple of Death - since I was a kid, and never gotten a chance to run them because I never had a group last long enough. That would make a great Far Land adventure - the armies of a distant Republic are being overrun, but in their hour of need an explorer finds a portal to Daunton and they begin recruiting mercenaries...)
The key would be to be sure there are exit points where players and/or DM's could get out of the mega-adventure if it lasts too long.
Stonegod, Covaithe, Phoenix8008, or Boddynock, can you point us in the direction of where the Living Enworld mega-adventure catastrophe is? I hunted some on my own, but without a point of reference it's looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume it's been archived at this point somewhere, but am not sure where that would be. Is it even somewhere we can still view it?
If this is something that gets attempted, it would probably be a good idea to look at what and how the other one failed. Plus, I've never seen a mega-adventure attempted before on a PbP board and am curious what the overall intention was going into it; did things in one adventure have direct, immediate effects in the others or was it a more abstract connection between the adventures, things like that.
Both covaithe & P8 were able to be more constructive in their comments than I was: kudos to them.
@renaug1: I'm sorry but I found that I'd finished the scotch already.
@P8: You're right, of course, that Don Incognito is already streets ahead by not attempting to run a dozen games on his own! (If only that were a joke! ) I was aware that I wasn't really adding anything new to the comments already made ... just trying to convey some of the horror of it all.
I still think, however, that PBP is better suited to smaller adventures than the grand, overarching schemes. The slow pace (even posting daily) simply makes it too hard to maintain the momentum.
@Stringbean2142: It's not really that we can point you to a single record of the difficulties the mega-adventure produced. Rather, it was the toll it took over time on a community of players who were left high and dry when the initiating DM disappeared, and the hit which LEW's creativity took because just about everybody was involved in the M-A and there was no energy or time left for the non-M-A aspects of life in LEW.
Perhaps this thread will give an indication of it. As you can see from the comments in it, LEW ran into difficulty for a number of reasons but the M-A was a not inconsiderable element of its troubles.
Retired PbP Characters:
Alton Highlea: Halfling Quest - Rooting Around
Andarin Startoes: Turtle Soup
Coraine Vagrius: Rhun’s Temple of Elemental Evil
Elyan Kolodah: CB’s Sunless Citadel
Hunolf Hjordsson: Sunless Citadel
Jimmy Masters: Deadlands: Savage West
Kelloran: Night’s Embrace: A Touch of Darkness
... And All The Rest ...
And here is the mega adventure council meeting which lasted 3 months just to get through the preliminaries of having a 'town hall' discussion IC about what was happening and why we needed so many groups of PC's, then sorting them all out into the various groups to be sent off to the 6 or so separate adventure threads.
HINT: If we get a mega adventure going, don't repeat that mistake. Just have the people needing the help come to the Hanged Man to recruit just like everyone else.
Thanks, both of you, for the links! It got me going in the right direction to find the rest of the threads. Now I need to lie down and let my poor, abused eyes rest after reading through them...
Still, from what I could gather it seems that what was most disastrous was that darn near everyone was involved in that one mega-adventure and so when it started to fall behind, it drained everyone just trying to keep it going. If that's the case, then what if we set limits to any possible multi-adventure plotlines? Say that no DM can have more than one adventure thread attached to a given plotline at a given time, that no more than 50% of the adventuring community can be attached to the plotline at a given time, and that no adventures are point-failure. It's not perfect, and I actually agree with Boddynock that PbP works best with smaller adventures. I think covaithe was the one who said think TV, not movies. Still, that would at least limit any problems arising from a M-A.
I know I probably wouldn't run any games under a M-A type format, and after seeing just how bad it can be, I'd probably keep my primary character out of it as well. But if it's something you would want to push for, I think it's not unreasonable to set some limits on it to protect L4W as a whole. At least that's my two cents.
Simply put, I'm asking for help. At least 3 DMs (in addition to myself) will be needed.
You have my sword.
I've been thinking about war recently too. The structure of the adventures could be like a branching flowchart.
I've been pondering how to make it feel like the party is contributing without feeling like they are fighting the whole war themselves. Broad directives would be best. Things like: recon this area, take and hold this village, protect this caravan. They have an objective but are free to carry it out as they see fit.
So far it looks to me like the best plan would be to have them hire out as mercenary companies. I'm not sure if it would be best for all the parties to be squads of the same company or for each party to be an independent company.
__________________ "Its a secret message from my teeth!" - The Tick
) I was aware that I wasn't really adding anything new to the comments already made ... just trying to convey some of the horror of it all.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
