The Luke Skywalker Paradox

My group is currently level 12 (in 4e) and rapidly moving toward the end of the campaign. Originally, I intended the game to go from 5th level to about 19th, with the overall plot being a war brewing between the Yuan-ti and the human empire.

At 12th level, I'm feeling tugs between the game feeling too rushed, or plodding along too slowly. By all reason, the game could finish in the next two sessions, wrapping up the major plot and resolving the over-all game. The players are extreemly focused on winning the war, and are moving at an alarming pace.

So comes to the explanation of my post title, The Luke Skywalker Paradox. In Empire, Luke learns he must go to Dagobah to train with Yoda and the rest of the heroes go off to continue the plot. While there, he consistently thinks about the "plot" and wishes to expedite the training. In the end, he sacrifices character growth for story advancement and leaves to fight Vader.

I see this as a major issue in how to run games. How does one offer up side-treks and sub-plots without making it feel like the story has come to a grinding halt. Obviously the war doesn't stop for them, and the players want to continue on. However, some level advancement and character growth would be a nice touch as well.

Thus I see a paradox in running a game. How do you guys get around this? Some players in the group have expressed the feeling that if the game is to end, let's end it. Others would like to continue on with their characters. The plot could be expanded, but I don't want to do it in such a way that would sacrifice the feel of the game, i.e. with the war beginning, they feel like they need to move extremely fast to react, and I don't want to then make everything feel falsly rushed...

Opening up the floor on this. It's really edition/system neutral and an issue I've felt in other campaigns I've ran. What's everyone think?

I see your point, but I don't see a conflict in the two objectives. Reason being: adventure. Introducing a side-trek hook is simply a new opportunity for "adventure". In my games that I'm in now, we never pass up a good story hook, even if it turns out not to be immediately related to our ongoing war(s). They will always come back to the main story (especially if as you say, they are extremely focused on winning that war) but at least in my experience, players LOVe a good story no matter where it takes them.

Interesting quandary, and great name for it, btw. But let me stretch the analogy to its breaking point

Luke went after Vader, lost, and one of the great twists in movie history was revealed. The saga didn't end -- instead, it set things up for a grand conclusion in Return of the Jedi.

In general, I'd say a few things:

1. So long as you don't force it, having a twist, like having the PCs actually fail, can be a really spectacular event in your campaign. They're racing to stop the yuan-ti -- and things go wrong. Suddenly, the situation is more dire than ever. They are forced to retreat, lick their wounds, and regroup.

2. Just as the war doesn't wait for the PCs, so too can events in the world influence the war in ways that the PCs can't. To continue to use your game as an example, it could be a bitterly cold winter that temporarily slows the yuan-ti, and gives everyone (including your PCs) some breathing room.

3. Sometimes, the key is hiding the ultimate goal. Having shorter ranger objectives for the players, which eventually feed into the overarching storyline, but which have natural breaks that allow them to explore the world or their own characters, is really important in an extended campaign. My DM for the Shackled City game I am still playing (2 yrs, not even half way, I think) does this really well.

Nothing a Hyperbolic Time Chamber can't fix.

Joking aside, why not just end it? End the war story and start a new one in the immediate aftermath of the event(s). Let the people attached to their characters keep them and the others who would like new ones make new ones.

Ktulu said:

I see this as a major issue in how to run games. How does one offer up side-treks and sub-plots without making it feel like the story has come to a grinding halt.

Click to expand...

Do you want to tell stories to the players or create a story jointly through play?

If it's the former, you make the "B" plot related to the themes in the "A" plot. Probably from another angle, giving the "A" plot a new perspective.

If it's the latter, you give up control over the story and let what happens, happen. You could come up with "B" plot possibilities, probably in the form of NPCs who exist to grant a new perspective on what's happened so far, and maybe the players grab on to it. Or the "B" plot might become the "A" plot, who knows what will happen.

If you don't care about creating/telling a story, don't worry about it. Have them find a treasure map off a dead goblin and if they want to trek to the far side of the world, let them.

Mentat55 said:

Luke went after Vader, lost, and one of the great twists in movie history was revealed. The saga didn't end -- instead, it set things up for a grand conclusion in Return of the Jedi.

In general, I'd say a few things:

1. So long as you don't force it, having a twist, like having the PCs actually fail, can be a really spectacular event in your campaign. They're racing to stop the yuan-ti -- and things go wrong. Suddenly, the situation is more dire than ever. They are forced to retreat, lick their wounds, and regroup.

Click to expand...

To stretch YOUR analogy even further, let me ask a question:

How would Empire/Jedi been different if, for instance, we hadn't learned that Vader was Luke's father until after Vader had died? If Vader turning against the Emperor seemed illogical at the time?

Having a twist occur after everything seems to be said and done can be just as intriguing. As someone suggested, let the war end - play out naturally, with some seemingly odd or unexplained events.

Then, in the next campaign, or after the war is over, the players discover the twists after the fact.

Also, nothing wrong with flashbacks. It's rarely done in RPGs, but I think flashbacks are a suitable way to offer character growth.

Look at the Babylon 5 story arc - the war was the high point of the arc, but after winning the war, you have to win the peace, and handle all the fallout from the bad guys who didn't just give up when their generals lost.

Plenty of room for mad scientists/arcanists to attempt to fire up their last ditch doomsday weapon ("If we can't have the world, nobody can!!!!1!")

Cheers

Look at the Babylon 5 story arc - the war was the high point of the arc, but after winning the war, you have to win the peace, and handle all the fallout from the bad guys who didn't just give up when their generals lost.

Plenty of room for mad scientists/arcanists to attempt to fire up their last ditch doomsday weapon ("If we can't have the world, nobody can!!!!1!")

Cheers

Our group had similar problems with Red Hand of Doom.

To get to the root of the problem...

"The players are extremely focused on winning the war, and are moving at an alarming pace."

Which means the players are worried about losing the war if they aren't constantly moving toward winning it. To use a 4E-ism, they need to have "Points of Light" not only geologically, but chronologically... Bits of time in which they know nothing is going to go wrong with the war. Brief periods of respite from the constant threat warfare, which they can use to develop their characters, without having to worry about saving the world.

To again use the Star Wars analogy, consider Obiwan training Luke on board the Millenium Falcon after they escape from Tatooine, or Han and Leia and Chewie trying to relax in Cloud City before they're betrayed by Lando, or everyone hanging out in the Ewok village before the raid on the shield generator.

Plot matters not. The essentialy story to an RPG is what happens, not what you planned to happen. Can you stretch out events? Sure, if there is reason to do so. Is it okay to end the campign? Yes. Is it okay to resolve the central crisis, then keep gaming? You bet.

A novel has introduction, rising action, climax, denoument, then maybe resolution. That's because a novel has to end. RPGs are under no such limitations. Rising and falling action is at work during every session, because you truly do not know what will happen next. While a campaign might have a natural ending point, it is not necessary to pre-plan it.

My advice? All the good, old heroic stories, and I mean like King Arthur and Beowulf and LOTR and Star Wars and Samson and the rest end in one of two ways. Either you end up on a high note, or you end with the heroes being crushed by one last, glorious battle. So let the heroes save the world, and you can end there, or you can play out how the bad guy's surviving lieutenants dog them to the ends of the world and they die battling demons on an ice floe in the middle of nowhere.

If you depart from that structure, you depart from heroism and enter realms like trilogy, series, picaresque, rhapsody, and the like. Which is good, too, but very modern, very different.