D&D General Beginning a new campaign advice - foreshadowing and railroading

[Jacob Lewis]

If the story begins with the characters stranded on a mysterious island, then that is where the campaign should begin. Anything leading up to their situation is irrelevant unless it will have any significance or impact later in the campaign.

For example, let's say you want them to run into others from the ship who betrayed them or caused the situation. You don't need to give them an exposition of events that happened, and you don't want to give them the opportunity to thwart it. That's not part of the real story coming up. Its just background and setup.

An alternative setup is to have the players unaware of any mutiny or betrayal. They simply wake up on a strange shore among the wreckage of the vessel. You can let them find clues about the details of what happened as they search for survivors, gear, and supplies. There's no reason they need to be part of the crew to be on a ship. They could just be passengers with limited contact or interest in the crew, until now.

 

[Blue]

Just to take a step back, how much of the pitch to the player in Session 0 survives the surprise? If it's most of it, all good. And I think that's it - it's still exploration of the island, just with different parameters than they expected.

But if it's a dramatically different campaign then they signed on for, then you are breaking your social contract about the campaign for a single surprise in a session. In that case I'd tell them more in Session 0.

If the mutiny has "plot armor" and can't be changed by the PCs, I would start directly after it. If it has partial plot armor in that it will occur anyway but the effects of it can be dramatically changed by player agency, then I'd start before.

Also, I am a big fan of making rule changes to support the campaign theme mechanically. Session 0, tell them that since it's an exploration theme you are toning down some abilities which will trivialize it. You mention the Outlander feature, that's a big one. Maybe move to a different Rest variant so that you can still support a number of encounters per long rest you want while having weeks of travel. That sort of thing.

 

[Gimby]

Thanks for the feedback on this everyone - I think the overall suggestion to kick things off after the mutiny is probably the best one, a flashback would probably be nice but not necessary.

Regarding the social contract/session zero concerns - yes, I think that this is covered by the original pitch (and anyone familiar with the classic story) The first group I ran this for certainly were happy with it.

 

[d24454_modern]

Focus more on the setting and overall “problem” than any actual plot. The Japanese describe it as Kishotenketsu. Having an explicit goal just makes the plot too narrow. Work on character interactions first and then the plot will reveal itself.

 

[Mallus]

The simplest way to do this is decouple the mutiny from the stranding.

A mutiny occurs and then a storm or monster shipwrecks them. The PCs may or may not stop the mutiny, but can’t do anything about the ship-wrecking event.

You get to start aboard ship, gradually raise tension as the mutiny winds up, give the players a chance to get involved, and then throw them into an entirely different challenge on the island.

 

[Blue]

I posted earlier, but I've been playing forever. So I asked this question of a pair of teen D&D players I knew.

They both would want to start before the mutiny, and with a "there will be unexpected things on the island" during the pitch but not keeping the mutiny a secret. They both liked the idea and would play in it as well.

 

[Mallus]

Also, if you‘re into JRPGs @Gimby a game called Ys: Lacrimosa of Dana has a similar setup. By chance have you played it? If not, it’s very good.

 

[aco175]

Why couldn't the PCs be on either side of the mutiny? There could still be plenty of paths to follow. Someone still needs to get the map and follow it to the treasure. Then meeting with the other side and chances to defect back to the other side. Throw in a "battle of 5 armies" where both sides need to come back together to fight undead or something. Lots of possibilities.

Still the problem of initially siding when the mutiny starts.

 

[Lanefan]

If the story begins with the characters stranded on a mysterious island, then that is where the campaign should begin. Anything leading up to their situation is irrelevant unless it will have any significance or impact later in the campaign.

Unless the OP's intent as DM is to give the PCs a chance to get to know each other - and to roleplay this introduction process out a bit - before they find themselves in an emergency situation rather than after. I get this, as it's what I'd prefer to do as well.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The simplest way to do this is decouple the mutiny from the stranding.

A mutiny occurs and then a storm or monster shipwrecks them. The PCs may or may not stop the mutiny, but can’t do anything about the ship-wrecking event.

You get to start aboard ship, gradually raise tension as the mutiny winds up, give the players a chance to get involved, and then throw them into an entirely different challenge on the island.

I like this approach.

The nice thing about it is if the players stop the mutiny and the villain ends up in the brig (instead of murdered), you have an opportunity to introduce the villain back into the game later on the island (since he'll escape during the storm!).