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.