D&D General Chekhov's Gun and the Hickman Revolution- What Type of Campaign Do You Run?

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing about Pharaoh is, it isn't very different to earlier adventures, such as White Plume Mountain. The only innovation is the dungeon has a better narrative, beyond "a mad dungeon master did it". Which means when the players do what they normally do - complete the dungeon - they are rewarded with a satisfying cutscene, rather than a pile of pretend money.

It's when you start hooking these things together into a campaign that railroading becomes a problem. The sequels, that became the Desert of Desolation campaign, depend on the players unleashing an evil efreet in a random encounter in the first adventure. What if the players didn't free the efreet? What if they didn't have that encounter at all? What if they don't care? If the DM is determined to run the sequels they have to force the players to act in a certain way.

To tie into the OP, the efreet is the Chekhov's gun.

 

[Yora]

I have fully converted to Ben Robbins' West Marches and Gus L's Classic Dungeon Crawling paradigms. That's how RPGs are meant to be played. As a game. With structures that are predictable and allow players to be proactive by seeking out and even creating adventures on their own, not passively consuming a pre-written story.

 

[Aldarc]

In regards to Hickman discussions, I think the biggest issue I have is the idea that linear adventures are all post, and nonlinear adventures are all pre. I think its entirely possible to have an overarching plot, while encouraging a highly lethal skill play environment. I also think its possible to have an open world total player agency game with an overarching plot. This, so to speak, cornered market idea often falls apart at the table. Players sign up expecting one type of play and get another. You need more distinction than adventure path or sandbox, IMO.

I think that's where module design fits. This to say that instead of complete sandboxes or adventure paths, that there are plug-in-play modules that can be dropped into the game setting for playing in a non-linear fashion.

IMHO, I would personally prefer more modules than adventures as modules are also useful for running one-shots or shorter adventures.

 

[Celebrim]

The thing about Pharaoh is, it isn't very different to earlier adventures, such as White Plume Mountain. The only innovation is the dungeon has a better narrative, beyond "a mad dungeon master did it". Which means when the players do what they normally do - complete the dungeon - they are rewarded with a satisfying cutscene, rather than a pile of pretend money.

Well, and some magic items and a pile of pretend money.

To me the main innovation in Pharoah is the quality of the map. White Plume Mountain is overtly gamist in design, in that quite obviously everything exists for the purpose of a series of challenges of player and character ability. Pharoah is the same thing and made in the fiction for the same purpose, but it works much harder to justify its existence and make itself believable. It also I think excels earlier designs in giving a wide variety of encounters within the same dungeon framework.

It's when you start hooking these things together into a campaign that railroading becomes a problem.

The sequels are I think in general less well regarded, but that that's because Pharoah is so hard to run wrong. Even a novice GM can run Pharoah and have a great experience. The sequels on the other hand in addition to being less well designed with less satisfying story beats also leave a lot out that skill is going to have to put in.

The sequels, that became the Desert of Desolation campaign, depend on the players unleashing an evil efreet in a random encounter in the first adventure.

And this is an example. They don't really. Sure it would be really fortuitous for the story if the players themselves were responsible for unleashing the evil efreet, but they don't have to be. If the players don't do that, well the GM can always invent the NPCs who did and who are now inhabiting the same world with their own motivations as either foils or allies of the PCs or the Efreet or both as the plot twists. The problem is that the module doesn't tell you that and doesn't help you plot that version of the story. You have to be skilled enough to see that need immediately and know how to handle it.

What if the players didn't free the efreet? What if they didn't have that encounter at all?

And again, this isn't a huge problem, but the skilled GM wanting to try to steer the game uses a soft railroading technique like Shrodinger's Map to ensure the PC's do have the encounter. Players being players can be expected to behave pretty reliably after that, but even if they don't well that's still story you can work with.

What if they don't care? If the DM is determined to run the sequels they have to force the players to act in a certain way.

I mean if they really don't care and they have different motives you can always tempt them with motives that they do care about. But if they are truly bored and you don't have buy in, you just start dangling hooks until find something that they are willing to buy in and set the module aside now as a campaign element - the Evil Efreet Lord rules this part of the world and the people are suffering and in need of a savior. Move on to something else, and if the PC's want to come back to it later, fine. And if not, oh well. But I mean seriously, if you don't have buy in at all there is probably something big wrong with your DMing, because what more motivation do players need than loot and heroism. If they are really that bored that they are wanting to get out of the scenario, what the heck is the problem?

 

[Celebrim]

IMHO, I would personally prefer more modules than adventures as modules are also useful for running one-shots or shorter adventures.

I've run both episodic games and adventure paths, and both styles have their advantages.

The main advantage of an episodic game where there isn't a strong overarching story, just a series of largely unrelated adventures, is that the players and player characters are under no time pressure. They are free to pursue their own stories, and in particular this gives you as the DM more opportunity to pull on the hooks in the player backstories.

However, there are limits to that. As the size of the party increases, the less fun it can be to have player's pursuing their own goals because the rest of the group may not have buy in on the individual player's story, since well, it is about that player and that player will take the lion's share of the spotlight. There is also a big chance you end up with a split party which can be a real headache. There are ways to handle that and I've been in a campaign that did, but it's an enormous amount of work for the DM - more than most DMs can handle.

The main advantage of an adventure path is it keeps everyone on the same page. It's also much easier to prep for than a true sandbox, though probably not that much different than an episodic game. Also, for the most part it makes for much bigger and more epic story beats than all but the longest running most epic episodic games where you eventually find the adventure the players all want to have. If you follow him, you can see that in Matt Mercer's games he gets to fire off his well-planned Chekov's Guns. Well, I've fired off my own well-planned Chekov's Guns and when you get the story beats right it's amazing for everyone involved. They can out magnitude the best planned episodic story beats ("Come here... cutter.") just by the amount of interaction you've had with NPCs prior to pulling your story twists. You can see that by how well received Dragon Lance was when it first came out.

The problem is that if the players/PCs believe that they are "saving the world", they really never have anything better to do. You don't have as much opportunity for side quests and players pursuing their own goals. And of course, the other problem is that it takes at some point a lot of skill to run an adventure path that doesn't at points feel like it's on rails.

 

[Aldarc]

I've run both episodic games and adventure paths, and both styles have their advantages.

Same, but I find that modules provide something closer to a middle-ground between full sandbox and linear adventure.

The problem is that if the players/PCs believe that they are "saving the world", they really never have anything better to do.

I usually try to make that tone clear to players at the outset. I find that it's helpful to get everyone on the same page. It's not fun, IMHO, for someone expecting to play a game of "dungeon-crawling get-rich-mercenaries" only to be pulled into a game of "Big Darn Heroes saving the world from the BBEG" by one or more other players or vice versa.

 

[Celebrim]

Same, but I find that modules provide something closer to a middle-ground between full sandbox and linear adventure.

By episodic game I'm referring to a series of modules or adventures that aren't directly related to each other but where you as the DM have buy in from all the players, that is, they all agree that they want to have that adventure. So yeah, it's basically an adventure path with no overarching plot, but because it has no overarching plot, you can more easily take direction from the players and insert side quests or have them insert side quests without it being a problem.

 

[Aldarc]

By episodic game I'm referring to a series of modules or adventures that aren't directly related to each other but where you as the DM have buy in from all the players, that is, they all agree that they want to have that adventure. So yeah, it's basically an adventure path with no overarching plot, but because it has no overarching plot, you can more easily take direction from the players and insert side quests or have them insert side quests without it being a problem.

Thank you for clarifiying. In which case, I would add one thing to your earlier thought:

The main advantage of an adventure path is it keeps everyone on the same page. It's also much easier to prep for than a true sandbox, though probably not that much different than an episodic game. Also, for the most part it makes for much bigger and more epic story beats than all but the longest running most epic episodic games where you eventually find the adventure the players all want to have. If you follow him, you can see that in Matt Mercer's games he gets to fire off his well-planned Chekov's Guns. Well, I've fired off my own well-planned Chekov's Guns and when you get the story beats right it's amazing for everyone involved. They can out magnitude the best planned episodic story beats ("Come here... cutter.") just by the amount of interaction you've had with NPCs prior to pulling your story twists. You can see that by how well received Dragon Lance was when it first came out.

The problem is that if the players/PCs believe that they are "saving the world", they really never have anything better to do. You don't have as much opportunity for side quests and players pursuing their own goals. And of course, the other problem is that it takes at some point a lot of skill to run an adventure path that doesn't at points feel like it's on rails.

One problem IMHO with firing Chekov's Gun is that the gunner is not necessarily a good shot. Firing a well-planned shot does not always ensure a good and satisfying beat. It can sometimes feel "meh" or like the rug is being pulled out from under the players. It's the same with playing linear video game stories. Sure Chekov's Gun can be nice when it's executed well, but it can feel like a waste of time or a massive disappointment even if it's slightly off.

I will also say that as I have grown older, my own play perspective tends to find "Save the World!" plots far less interesting than "Save the Village!" plots. The stakes of the latter IME feel more visceral and palpable than the former when they are threatened.

 

[Celebrim]

I usually try to make that tone clear to players at the outset. I find that it's helpful to get everyone on the same page. It's not fun, IMHO, for someone expecting to play a game of "dungeon-crawling get-rich-mercenaries" only to be pulled into a game of "Big Darn Heroes saving the world from the BBEG" by one or more other players or vice versa.

So many problems could be solved if groups would just discuss what everyone wanted from their campaign beforehand. In addition to discussing it, when I first acquired my current group, I gave them all a questionnaire about what they wanted, and for example they all indicated what they wanted from play was me supplying stories for them to interact with, not them supplying the story. Since there were six of them this was probably for the best, since really a low melodrama game for me maxes out at about three players, but if everyone wanted something other than to be part of an epic story I would have run a very different game.

Right now I'm running a Star Wars bounty hunter game because everyone watched The Mandalorian and geeked out (and at the time I was running Call of Cthulhu, which I've basically learned doesn't work with this group because they want to be Big Dang Heroes and chew bubble gum and kick butt at the same time). But my game actually delivers on the bounty hunting experience in a way The Mandalorian just doesn't after about episode 3, because I know with this group a bait and switch where they start out as bounty hunters and end up on a noble heroic quest wouldn't be awesome for this group, since for the most part they also prefer to be amoral anti-heroes that are motivated by money and self-interest and not ideology. Which isn't to say that I haven't got them to double cross the Empire from time to time and work for the "Good Guys", just that mostly the character motivation is more, "How much does the job pay?".

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

As a GM, I usually prep my campaigns with a Chekov's gun and loose thoughts about when it could be fired. But there's also guns - prepped or improvised - that belong to other folks. And the partys actions, whims and wants decide which ones will get fired and the overall impact of the shot.

 

[payn]

So many problems could be solved if groups would just discuss what everyone wanted from their campaign beforehand. In addition to discussing it, when I first acquired my current group, I gave them all a questionnaire about what they wanted, and for example they all indicated what they wanted from play was me supplying stories for them to interact with, not them supplying the story. Since there were six of them this was probably for the best, since really a low melodrama game for me maxes out at about three players, but if everyone wanted something other than to be part of an epic story I would have run a very different game.

I too find this to be ideal, but players often screw it up. How so? I think its a combo of not being able to articulate what they want out of theme and mechanics. I think some of us folks that really love this stuff, like enough to talk on a forum during the workday about it, take for granted that a lot of gamers simply dont have that level of TTRPG acumen. They dont really know what they want outside of the most general play experience. Worse is many of them just want to play a game with their friends and go along with whatever the GM is enthusiastic about. Then, about half a dozen sessions in they drop the bomb that they just are not really into the game after all the GM's hard work.

Which is why I'm reluctant to sign onto an adventure path with folks I dont know. I need to know you can work within a box and be creative and have fun. More importantly, that you can stick it for the long haul and not abandon the game after a few sessions because now you want to be a chicken farmer instead of an adventurer (long story).

Right now I'm running a Star Wars bounty hunter game because everyone watched The Mandalorian and geeked out (and at the time I was running Call of Cthulhu, which I've basically learned doesn't work with this group because they want to be Big Dang Heroes and chew bubble gum and kick butt at the same time). But my game actually delivers on the bounty hunting experience in a way The Mandalorian just doesn't after about episode 3, because I know with this group a bait and switch where they start out as bounty hunters and end up on a noble heroic quest wouldn't be awesome for this group, since for the most part they also prefer to be amoral anti-heroes that are motivated by money and self-interest and not ideology. Which isn't to say that I haven't got them to double cross the Empire from time to time and work for the "Good Guys", just that mostly the character motivation is more, "How much does the job pay?".

That is why I have taken to actually running one shots, organized play, bespoke experiences as a way to introduce myself and other gamers to each other. After a few sessions and few different games I can get an idea on what folks like and their playstyle. I also been drifting from D&D because its hard to get players who want to be Riddick instead of Conan, or Shaft instead of Nick Fury to work as a group. God forbid you split the party too, which is exactly what anti-hero loner BAMFs are inclined to do.

 

[overgeeked]

I have fully converted to Ben Robbins' West Marches and Gus L's Classic Dungeon Crawling paradigms. That's how RPGs are meant to be played. As a game. With structures that are predictable and allow players to be proactive by seeking out and even creating adventures on their own, not passively consuming a pre-written story.

Who’s Gus L and where can I find his ideas you’re talking about.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

hard to get players who want to be Riddick instead of Conan,

Really? I quickly get bored with fantasy. And really, is there that much difference?

 

[Xamnam]

Looking for the direct quote, which, with such a well worn concept at this point and considering translation, is hard to find, I find two standard forms, attributed to a letter he wrote to a fellow playwright, and the memoirs of an art collector:

“One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.” [Sometimes followed by: "It’s wrong to make promises you don’t mean to keep.” ]
and
"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there."

I do think the phrasing of the first is salient. There is a big difference between an empty and loaded rifle. If the rifle starts on stage, there is no knowing the status of it until it is mentioned or fired. Similarly, finding a dragonslaying arrow in the treasure of the last room of a dungeon tells you little about the 'intended' purpose by itself, versus finding it specifically protected, or in the active process of being crafted.

The other aspect worth highlighting is that this is Chekov's Gun, and not Chekov's Whiskey Bottle, though there are certainly situations that could result in that. As much as I love No Exit, plays are a dramatic medium, and the very inclusion of the gun in the limited presentation that a stage allows creates excitement. The characters are going to take action, and a gun generally presents a very high stakes means of doing so. If the only things hanging on the wall are a painting, a coat hook, and a gun, one of these stands out. The audience should absolutely notice these two things, especially if the director and set designer are doing their jobs well. One generally does not see a table in a scene, and assume that it will bear major plot-driving fruit. The location, presentation, and uniqueness of the object in its setting are going to drive how rewarding, or expected, it will be to see it used.

Generally, games should not unfold as plays. They have different motivations and mechanisms and goals, this is so obvious as to almost warrant not saying. But, humans are going to find narrative in both, and so tools for crafting satisfying narratives are worth considering. I myself am not going to make sure there are nothing but guns on the walls, nor would I stop them from melting down the gun into a new pair of daggers, but I absolutely want to provide the opportunities that are the seeds for resolution that feels all the more earned due to the story being, if not neat and tidy, at least more curated than the randomness of real life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really? I quickly get bored with fantasy. And really, is there that much difference?

I think the issue here is that Riddick became a hero. Conan became a king.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the issue here is that Riddick became a hero. Conan became a king.

And neither of them wanted the gig.

 

[Yora]

Who’s Gus L and where can I find his ideas you’re talking about.

All Dead Generations is basically a book on dungeon crawling and exploration play.

 

[overgeeked]

All Dead Generations is basically a book on dungeon crawling and exploration play.

Ah. Yeah, I've read that before. Just had no idea the guy's name was Gus L and didn't recognize the title. Thanks.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Meanwhile .....


Excuse me, sir, do you have a Chekhov's Bun?

 

[Jack Daniel]

I run sandboxes, and I aim for that immersive, lived-in feeling to whatever extent that I can manage. A good sandbox is dynamic, alive, and full of content: a place where stuff happens that doesn't just revolve around the PCs; where if the PCs keep to themselves, bigger stuff will happen anyway; and if the PCs do involve themselves in larger affairs, the world responds appropriately.

A good sandbox is a simulated world that exists even when and where the PCs aren't looking. Blanks off the edge of the map and procedural content-generating shortcuts are necessary evils that follow from referees being mere mortals who don't have all the time and creativity that we should like to have; I long for the day when AI technology reaches the point that it can compensate adequately.

I have nothing nice or respectful to say about linear adventure paths. I've played through Final Fantasy and Mass Effect; I've long since outgrown all desire to replicate such deterministic affairs on the tabletop. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèsse-là.