How to do a doomed, "Halo Reach" type game?

[Lidgar]

One thing to consider in running a "doomed" campaign is to make sure it doesn't feel too much like a railroad for the players. Remember that the Spartans on reach were in the military and on a mission - they were trained to follow orders and see the mission through. Not all (and in my experience, few) PC's act this way.

Making it evident that different actions - including "running away" and somehow avoiding their "fates" - are real options for them. This will hopefully reinforce the feeling that they are making a "willing" sacrifice, and therefore lead towards a more heroic ending to the campaign.

In addition, it should become evident through their actions that the forces of Good (or whatever forces they are representing) have the best chance for victory if they see things through to the end. Dropping clues along the way as the campaign develops can foreshadow their potential doom while adding a certain amount of desirable tension.

 

[Someone]

Something that just crossed my mind.

In addition to all the advice already in this thread, give your players the choice, early. They can leave the planet/kingdom/whatever, and leave everyone to their fates, or stay knowing well that they are (almost?) doomed to die but can perhaps make a difference and live forever in legend (after all, many epic destinies imply the character ceasing to exist). Suddendly it's not railroading (they had a choice, after all) and instead of an outside imposition it's their own heroic efforts.

 

[renau1g]

Can't give you xp Someone...too much in the last 24 hrs, but great idea!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Lots of great advice in this thread. Like

a) Make it a prequel session, not an entire campaign.

b) Keep it clear from the outset that they're going to fail, but let them have minor moments of success that do affect the rest of the campaign.

Do-able, but you'd need the right group, and you'd need to not spend 2-3 years on a 1-20 or 1-30 campaign that ultimately failed. Spending one night on a campaign that ultimately fails to set the stage for a broader campaign that might succeed might be a good idea, though.

 

[renau1g]

Yeah a full on campaign wouldn't be ideal either IMO, perhaps even a few levels worth as that way you'd get a bit attached to your PC's, but not too attached where you would be too bummed by their deaths, just enough to actually matter. In a one-shot I wouldn't care too much if the PC lived or died, but a PC where I played for a while and got more in character... yeah then it might mean more.

 

[Azgulor]

I'd differentiate between a "Doomed outcome" as opposed to "Doomed PCs".

To use a Reach-like example, if the Demon King is leading the Orc Horde towards the PCs homeland, you can set up the campaign (or arc, etc.) as:

"In the 8th year of King Whathisname's reign, the Demon Lord united the orc tribes and led the horde towards the kingdoms of the East. Kingdom X. Castle Alamo, a small border fort which guarded Don't Tread On Me pass, was the last line of defense between the Horde and the heartlands of the kingdom.

The bards still sing of the Fall of Castle Alamo & the brave defenders who died there. This is the story of that battle..."

So what do the PCs know? They know who the bad guys are (at least in general terms), they know what's at stake, and they know that the Castle ultimately fell.

They don't know how the castle fell, how long it held, who died, or more importantly, who lived. It's still a doomed scenario, but you've left it open ended. Perhaps they'll die valiantly as the orcs sack the castle. Perhaps they'll die leading a strike team against the Demon Lord. If successful, the castle fell but the horde disbanded without the unifying force of the Demon Lord. Perhaps they'll lead a small group of survivors & VIPs to safety while the wounded defenders hold the castle for as long as they can. Perhaps they'll turn coward and run, leaving their comrades-in-arms to die.

This type of scenario gives you much more freeedom than "The Horde stormed the castle and slew every last man, woman, and child."

 

[Joshua Randall]

This conversation reminds me of the book Legend by David Gemmell. You can read the Wikipedia page for yourself, but basically, it's the story of a key fortress that must be held. And a major character (Druss) knows he is doomed to die.

A large portion of the book consists of various characters asking and answering the question, Why fight here if we know we're going to be overrun eventually? Why fight at all if in a hundred year, or a thousand, the empire will crumble anyway?

In the end (MAJOR SPOILERS) [sblock]Druss is killed defending the fortress, along with several other main characters. But they held out long enough that the enemy general is forced to depart to deal with an attempted coup by one of his sons.[/sblock]

I've always thought it would make for a good D&D campaign.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Another reason it works in a computer game is that a computer game is somewhat like a novel: the characters are on a railroad and that's the only thing that makes their doom inevitable.

If you were playing through halo and you were actually able to do whatever you wanted, I doubt you would plow into the final doom scenario after you had foreknowledge of it. You would take actions to try to win.

Hell, I can't think of an inevitable doom scenario in any interactive media that doesn't remove control from the participant for the final scene. In fact I can't think of a single scheduled defeat scenario where the PC has any interaction at all: they all have to be strict railroads, or they just don't work.

 

[green slime]

Another reason it works in a computer game is that a computer game is somewhat like a novel: the characters are on a railroad and that's the only thing that makes their doom inevitable.

If you were playing through halo and you were actually able to do whatever you wanted, I doubt you would plow into the final doom scenario after you had foreknowledge of it. You would take actions to try to win.

Hell, I can't think of an inevitable doom scenario in any interactive media that doesn't remove control from the participant for the final scene. In fact I can't think of a single scheduled defeat scenario where the PC has any interaction at all: they all have to be strict railroads, or they just don't work.

?? Are you talking about computer games, books, or an RPG, in your last sentence? Because I'd disagree with the RPG: the player chooses whether to make a meaningful sacrifice (accepts their doom), or runs away to live a meaningless existance. Perhaps even their failure to act or accept their fate, becomes infamous in the stories of the surviving culture.

 

[invokethehojo]

Except Paranoia is a light-hearted game that is based around TPKs. Ditto for games like Gamma World.

Reach is, instead, a rather dark and grim game - people fighting a war that they know they can't win. There are a few scenes in the game (I don't want to give spoilers, so I'll be speaking in general terms) where it works like this: we do something heroic, think we've won, and then watch as it is taken away from us.

If I say to my players "Okay guys, we're going to play a game where you're all fighters defending a planet that is about to be destroyed, and you're going to fail at the end", I may be able to get away with it - but then, if the players do something clever that could end the war, I either manipulate things so that it fails, or let them win - and destroy the tone I'm going for. And if I don't tell them at the start, when I start gunning for that gritty feel, they can very easily feel cheated.

It's not just Halo that has this problem. The story of the 300 Spartans also springs to mind. Or a WW2 campaign set in Stalingrad or Tobruz. Or the 47 Ronin.

I have an apocalyptic campaign I've been writing for awhile that has the "doomed from the start" feel. I have toyed with the idea of how to do it and I came up with a few ideas.

1. Tell the players that this is the apocalypse and that I have written the campaign so that the world will be destroyed by the end of it... unless they think up something so original that it sways my plot. Make them work for it.

2. Tell them that the goal of the campaign is for the characters to go through the events of the apocalypse so that everyone is familier with it. Then, when the campaign is over a new post-apocalyptic setting has been created. So even if there is a tpk, it serves the overall goal of creating a world that everyone is familier with and the players themselves helped to build and direct. Not to mention depending on their characters actions they could be famous heroes.

Not sure if any of that helps.