Do you always need to save the world

[Umbran]

This is one of my biggest issues with saving the world. Where is the help? At least LotR gave a reason why there wasn't an army of dwarves, elves, and men taking the right back to the mountain.

But most games it doesn't make any sense. "You are the troubleshooters." is not a good enough validation. The fate of the whole world lies in the hands of a few people and no one gives them more support? In a war campaign, if the PCs are going to destroy the enemy super weapon they should have ground support, diversion(s), air support, armor forces, overwatch, and transport/evac. Not given some more ammo and slightly bigger guns.

In a war campaign... there's a war on. The typical approach is simple - the bad guy has a huge army *and* a superweapon. The PC's side of the conflict can't just throw huge amounts of support to the PCs, because that materiel is required to hold back that army. The PCs, in effect, are their side's super-weapon.

In my own campaign, the PCs don't actually know that the world will end (well, actually just be ripped by such devastating war that civilization as we know it in North America ends - pretty much the same thing) if the evil plans are not thwarted. They just know that there's something nasty, and they're going to try to stop it. They don't know the full repercussions of what happens if they fail.

 

[Storminator]

I like eventually getting to save the world. You don't start there, and you don't get close to there until your PCs have a ton of history, connections, and power.

But eventually your PCs (assuming a long running D&D campaign) get to high level and can throw down with extraplanar incursions and demon princes and gods. So if those people aren't going to save the world, who can?

But I think you should end a campaign after a save the world plot - win or lose. Lose and the whole thing is over, win and retire the PCs and go back to 1st level.

PS

 

[Razjah]

In a war campaign... there's a war on. The typical approach is simple - the bad guy has a huge army *and* a superweapon. The PC's side of the conflict can't just throw huge amounts of support to the PCs, because that materiel is required to hold back that army. The PCs, in effect, are their side's super-weapon.

This solution is system dependent in my experience. Many games aim for "level appropriate" encounters. If the PCs can each wipe out whole squads of enemies, I'm cool with it. If storm troopers are still supposed to be a threat then this break verisimilitude for me.

 

[delericho]

But most games it doesn't make any sense. "You are the troubleshooters." is not a good enough validation. The fate of the whole world lies in the hands of a few people and no one gives them more support?

...

Am I the only one who finds it crazy when a king's support is upgrading the party's +4 weapons into +5 weapons and nothing else?

The problem with your example is that in D&D this actually makes sense. Because of the level-based nature of the game, a single high-level PC is the equivalent of a whole army of regular guys. Giving that handful of specialists the best equipment possible is the best chance for success in the whole endeavour.

 

[Umbran]

. If storm troopers are still supposed to be a threat then this break verisimilitude for me.

Yes, but then you have the Star Wars situation, and you're still good. The BBEGs have a megaweapon, and no amount of heavy artillery support from the good guys is useful. The situation must be resolved through the guile and bravery of a small group of individuals, not through raw firepower.

 

[Fobok]

In a war campaign... there's a war on. The typical approach is simple - the bad guy has a huge army *and* a superweapon. The PC's side of the conflict can't just throw huge amounts of support to the PCs, because that materiel is required to hold back that army. The PCs, in effect, are their side's super-weapon.

This is exactly the way I used to do it, most of the time anyway, back when I was GMing regularly. When the PCs get to the level where the world is at stake, (usually after a long campaign dealing with smaller stuff), they aren't alone. They have armies backing them up, but so do the bad guys. The PCs are the commandoes that go in and change the course of the war with a strategic strike.

 

[Campbell]

I think save the world scenarios are common because most traditional RPGs are built to experience procedural narratives. The devil is the details - stakes are determined by situations and not connections to the individual characters. With long term play there is a pressure to continue to increase the stakes. Without meaningful character exploration situation must be escalated in order to up the stakes.

 

[Gilladian]

I've been running Dnd games for 30+ years, nearly 40. I have NEVER run a save the world campaign, nor have I ever played one that got to a point where that's what we knew we were doing.

I much prefer things to be based on "save our town/city/place and friends" IF saving anything. More often, it is "getting richer and richer". Or "kicking the butts of the guys we hate, no matter what their goals are." I just don't see the PCs as being world-savers.

I play gritty games, run E6 instead of mythic or epic, etc... and my players love it. At least, they keep coming back for more.

 

[billd91]

About 20-odd years ago, we had a DM who ran a lot of "save the world" campaigns and it did get to be very fatiguing. I don't mind them, from time to time, but I don't want them all the time.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm running my first 'save the world' style campaign in 30 years of DMing. I did so because I felt this might be my last chance to run a really big scale game, and because when I questioned the players before the campaign they averred that they wanted a more adventure path/railroad style game.

It's a mixed bag. It's a really grand plot and I enjoy the really huge scale that I'm painting in on some level, but the down sides are pretty huge.

a) That really huge scale gets hard to achieve with the same level of concreteness that I'm used to working in. Lots of the time I'm not sure I'm conveying the living world of the game like I should be because I have to be abstract and wing it just because the canvas is so large.

b) Because the PC's are convinced that they need to save the world, they are pretty much on rails. They don't really have time to pursue any side plots that come up, no matter how personal they may be because really, saving the world is a precondition for being able to save your family, go play pirates, or anything else you might want to do. I tried to weave player's backstories into the story line as much as a I could, but not every player's backstory gives them a direct hook for the main story. This has been a particularly hard problem with replacement PC's, since I now have more things fixed in stone and fewer levers left to pull.

I don't think I'd do a save the world plot again. Save the region/village always worked for me before, and it gives the players a lot more freedom.