How I got rid of the 5-minute adventure day and nova-resting

[ExploderWizard]

The players immediately went "Escort?? Healer?! Laaaaaamme!!" And chose the assassin-hunting quest.

They were probably dreading the fact that she would lead them through the worst possible path without a care in the world, and arrive at her destination just to be killed by a stealthed Orc rogue just before completing the ritual.

" Fri&*ing HORDE!! "

 

[Harr]

Yes. This can be awesome. As a matter of fact, since the party has the opportunity for multiple time sensitive quests at the same time and must choose one to be priority there will be others that go by the wayside which can have rippling effects across the campaign and certainly lead to bigger adventures later.

I am a big fan of PC determined goals and thier completion as the biggest measure of campaign rewards.

Oh yes, I twigged onto this pretty soon after I started trying this out! For instance, what one session if I offer you and your party 1) a magical-focused quest with wiizards and contracts with demons and stuff 2) a war-focused quest, with raids, orcs, fighters, barbarians, etc and 3) a stealth-focused quest where you infiltrate a noble's residence through dipomacy, bluff and guile.

All three of those sound awesome to me. I can't decide between them. So you, as the party decide! And as the party chooses more and more magical-focused quests, well then the campaign turns into this great magical arcane stuff centered campaign, while if the party chooses mostly stealth and bluff quests, the campaign can turn into a rogues and spies deception kind of campaign, OR it can just be a little bit of everything, whatever the players feel like on that day. The campaign is born from the player's choices. I like that.

 

[Harr]

If you explain to the party, that unlike a videogame, you can't take all the time in the world to complete a quest. There's a timetable, and while flexible for the sake of fun, if the stop and rest after every fight, the bad guy will win.

That's it, though it's not so much about the TIME in and of itself. "Time" is just an excuse. The real thing in play here is CHOICE. If I CHOOSE to go back to town and go shopping or have a lay-down in the middle of the goblin's run to deliver his thing, then that's going to have a consequence.

I make this distinction because once game I was playing in, it was a Paizo module where you have to find some herbs for a cure for an illness in a town. Long story short we took too long because we chose to go left instead of right at the river. We arrive in town five days later with the cure and everybody was dead. That wasn't fun. It needs to be the player's choices that drive and pass time, which is why I have the "If you CHOOSE to leave the quest, that's it, it doesn't matter how much time literally needs to 'pass' for it to be failed, if you choose to leave, it passes, and you choose to stay and fight, it doesn't."

 

[Harr]

Greetings!
(2) Consequences and Dynamism--by having the quests somewhat timed, and then branching to other quests based on success or failure, the campaign enjoys a good level of dynamism, of consequences for the group's actions and choices, and an organic mechanic for other individuals and environments, towns, churches, etc to develop and grow in an organic manner, increasing the immersion factor and sense of realism and depth to the campaign!

This is definitely true. For example, in the quest where a wily female rogue seduced the city's alchemist and stole his golem-control amulet, like I said above, in the moment of her capture the rogue offered to become the party's ally if they let her go. They did let her go. Then they had to pretend they had killed her; they succeeded in convincing the city's captain of the town guard that she was dead, so he "called off" his guard who were searching for her, BUT, there was no way they could convince the very alchemist who mad made the golem that the golem wasn't still under her control; he just knew.

So, to finish up that particular quest I described Wesso (the alchemist) getting angry and asking them if they thought he was some kind of idiot, and a fine mess they've done and he wouldn't be asking them for help again! And now every time they want to buy potions or alchemy stuff (which they have to do often since we have no cleric or warlord in the party) I just say "Ok, you go to Wesso's place" and a little feeling of chilly resentment fills the room

Which is good I think! Let them develop their own relationship with NPCs based on the choices they make as well. Wesso might end up selling them out sometime in the future, or something, don't know yet. But at the same time Skwee (the rogue with the pet iron golem) is grateful and is sure to be a very important ally in times to come.

 

[Harr]

They were probably dreading the fact that she would lead them through the worst possible path without a care in the world, and arrive at her destination just to be killed by a stealthed Orc rogue just before completing the ritual.
"

Oh, for a fact, that's *exactly* what they were picturing, lol

 

[Janx]

bear in mind, when I say timetable, I don't mean it has to be directly tied to the passage of time.

More that if the PCs "waste" too much time, events happen such that the remaining encounters change.

Thus, it's OK if the party took longer on a given fight, you're not measuring minutes. But if the party stops for an extra day, or basically spends significant time doing things that aren't intended toward the quest, then the bad guys move forward in their plan.

I'd also not take a literal "one quest at a time" approach, barring the party ignore/drop a quest. It's possible the party may try to multi-task/solve some quests. That's up to them, and if they juggle fairly well, I'd let them do it.

What I'd recommend is that for any significant encounter (say BBEG), plan for 3 states. The first is what/where is the bad guy if the party pretty much heads for him, without siginificant delay. For drama, you can make it seem like the party arrived just in time, or possibly before the villain is fully ready.

The second, is for what if the party dilly dallies too much (resting when they should be traveling, ignoring the quest more than they should). For this state, the party should feel lucky to arrive just in time to stop a nefarious plot. His finger may be hovering over the launch button. Security is already prepared for the party's arrival, making it harder to get into the complex.

The third, is for if the party is "too late", basically they pretty much ignore the quest. The last state means the villain has already succeeded, pushed the button, the missile has not only launched, it's detonated, and the goal is achieved. The party hears about his victory (unless they were in the blast radius).

As a GM, you have to eyeball what state to put things in. Generally, the default state is where everything's like a typical adventure. You go room to room, scene to scene. You don't advance the time state, unless the party blatantly wastes time. It's OK if they choose the wrong direction (and head back, in fact, a good DM leaves a clue after the first mile that they went the wrong way so the party FEELS like they're behind). Imagine this state to be like the typical random dungeon. Monsters are wandering about, doing their day to day stuff. Award full XP for finishing the mission.

The "alert" state happens because the party doesn't get engaged with the mission. Stopping to rest for a day or more inside the dungeon is a good example. Other denizens of the dungeon will find the dead bodies of their dungeon-mates, and put the facility on alert. It's probably large patrols will form, and ultimately surround the room the PCs are holed up in. Award XP for the original mission, not extra for any added encounter difficulty.

the "too late" state, is for last resort. The players have totally disregarded the situation. The bad guys win. The game world is changed because the players didn't seriously try to save the day. Award 0-half XP for the original adventure.

Note: I advocate adding up all the XP for encounters, assuming the "default" state. Give out this amount or less, based on party success/time wasting.

 

[Harr]

Note: I advocate adding up all the XP for encounters, assuming the "default" state. Give out this amount or less, based on party success/time wasting.

Yeah, what I do is I add up the XP for all the encounters that make up the quest, and then I divide the result by the number of encounters +1. That +1 becomes the 'bonus' XP they get for finishing the whole thing in one day, succeeding at whatever they're supposed to be doing, etc.

I do get what you're saying about a more organic approach. I don't know if I could really handle the party being on two or more quests at once yet... I think the whole thing would become complicated and slip out of my hands really fast! The way I do it right now is more of a 'we're either on the quest right now, or we're not' kind of thing. Maybe as I advance I will handle more complexity with more ease.

 

[Lacyon]

Maybe as I advance I will handle more complexity with more ease.

If we give you enough XP surely you will level up in Dungeon Master!

 

[Spinachcat]

I think part of the benefit of the "time-crunch" adventure is that you get away from the traditional dungeon crawl, where what happens and how long doesn't tend to matter.

I never had this problem because just the threat of Wandering Monsters was enough to get PCs moving along. There was always a clock ticking. The longer you spend in the dungeon, the more potential beasties will find you or find the horses and camp you set up on the surface...

 

[Duncan Haldane]

It would be more video-game-y if the people/items with quests had a ! floating above them, and a ? when you came to get your reward.


Actually it sounds ok, a little forced. I would try to make sure that there are consequences to quests they didn't do, but that might come about the next time they go to choose their quest.

Don't be afraid to try an occasional twist
- for instance, the false quest that leads you to the real quest inside. (eg, you have a quest to recover the widget, nothing very significant. But when you get inside the dungeon where the widget is you discover someone significant wounded in the dungeon who needs help getting out).
- Or the two quests that cross over (eg the iron golem is going to be used to stop the healer-girl getting to the front lines).
- And then you could even try the "you can do BOTH these quests at once if you are clever" scenario - eg, if you manage to recover the giant mount of doom you could ride him back in time to make it to the ball...

That's just a couple I've thought of. While it's good to get your players to recognise the adventure and work towards it, sometimes you need to throw them a curveball so that they will grow as players. But too many curveballs and that becomes the standard, so be careful.

Duncan