Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6394763" data-attributes="member: 6677017">While it's kind of been hinted at, something you might want to look at is the way the story responds to heroes vs. villains.Even if you run a fairly simulationist world (as I do), campaigns tend to have a tone and character to them which dictates what sorts of story events are likely to be introduced. Heroes are expected to win, and generally get a sort of "heroic license" to have success. Whether it be in the form of an occasional deus ex machina, DMs fudging dice rolls that otherwise create TPKs, or just having friendly resources available to assist them in their good quests, the story itself wants them to succeed. It feels right to us, and we generally try to make it happen, providing the players allow us to.Villains on the other hand, are expected to fail in the end. They might have a crazy run of it, they might have intermittent success, or even a streak when it seems that they can't lose. But eventually, things go sour for them, and their lives reap the consequences of their choices. They can't maintain good relationships, their successes don't bring true happiness, and their evil deeds come back to haunt them. The best hope they have is to have a change of heart at the end and switch sides at the right time, usually dying heroically--but that can be a real challenge to verisimilitude if done poorly.What I might do in an actual campaign about evil characters is to give them no breaks. If they die, tough. If they get their favorite items stolen, tough. Since players are going to get upset if you intentionally make the story be against them (unless it's understood and agreed upon as part of the experience), I'd do this by maintaining a strict simulationism. While I might make sure there is some way for a character in a heroic campaign to recover his family heirloom sword, in a villain campaign, if it makes more sense that it gets melted down for raw materials or magic, then that's likely what happens. The world should respond to them in a way that naturally makes sense. If you want to, you can even set it up so that they are on the bad-side of a heroic storyline. Maybe their heroic enemies are the ones that do get heroic license and breaks. "Why do things to things always seem to go their way instead of ours?" 'Cause they're the good guys and you aren't. Of course, that sort of approach tends to create an adversarial experience between player and DM, and should be done with care and consent. Works great from a gamist challenge perspective, when the goal is to try to win even though the deck it stacked against you. The easier to do method though, is to not give the heroes any particular advantage and just leave them in a simulationist world that reacts to their choices naturally. That should include them being eventually hunted. When they are a big enough threat and higher level bands of adventurers (of any alignment) come after them, you don't have to give anyone any breaks before they eventually get the short of the stick and their heads on a pike.Of course, my favored approach, as I mentioned, is to decide before a campaign starts--but these are some considerations that might be worth applying even if you have to adapt things mid-game to accommodate and unexpectedly villainous party.</blockquote>

Verification