Do scenarios need a BBEG?

[Huw]

There are several modules with no BBEG. Tournament modules tend to avoid them, but that's because the party is usually very weak near the end and the module is testing the characters' resourcefulness.

Another module which comes to mind is: SPOILER

Spoiler

Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. The adventure has BBMG (big bad middle guy - or rather, two of them) who attack the player's early. Once defeated, the party can explore the temple in relative safety. Even the infamous cyst containinis a dangerous puzzle rather than an encounter).

END SPOILER

 

[Kristivas]

I had attempted to end a game where the PCs had to piece together alliances between groups, clans, and tribes, sabotage enemy forces/powerful bad guys, and restore a Prince to the throne to bring an army together to defend the kingdom. The game after that was gonna be on hold for two months, so my plan was to allow the PCs to witness the new King's army decimate the bad guys. The Warlord who had been trying to take the throne with his army was originally going to escape and come back after the PCs after our break. However....

While the battle was occurring, I got that whole "it's great this worked out, but we have nothing to do" vibe. They were kinda watching from a cliff (where they arrived just in time after getting a clan of Dwarves to agree to march into the enemy's rear and outflank them). They watched as the Warlord and his Lts escaped from the battle as the Dwarves rode in. That was supposed to be the end, but it didn't feel right. So, rather than have it end that way, the PCs started to head down the field and were stopped by the Warlord and one of his Lts, who had made their way over while his remaining guard held back any reinforcements for the PCs. He went into a rant about how the party ruined years of hard work, and he would make them pay, ect. So, overlooking the battlefield, the PCs took down the bad guy. I just couldn't let it end with them as spectators.

We've had other games end without an epic fight, but sometimes it just doesn't feel right.

 

[DonTadow]

There are several modules with no BBEG. Tournament modules tend to avoid them, but that's because the party is usually very weak near the end and the module is testing the characters' resourcefulness.

Another module which comes to mind is: SPOILER

Spoiler

Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. The adventure has BBMG (big bad middle guy - or rather, two of them) who attack the player's early. Once defeated, the party can explore the temple in relative safety. Even the infamous cyst containinis a dangerous puzzle rather than an encounter).

END SPOILER

There are a few, but the majority stilll have a BBEG. I"m reminded of the ones in the RPG Open, Nasrag, Goodman games and XCrawl. all tournament modules that usually end with a bbeg.

 

[Ourph]

Not only do I think BBEGs at the end of scenarios aren't necessary, I'm usually turned off by the idea of a scenario period. Rather than think of a set of adventures as having a beginning and an end, I try to create a campaign where the progression from one challenge to the next is player-driven rather than plot-driven. When the players defeat a bad guy, that "scenario" is only over if they want to pursue the matter no further. Otherwise, there are usually loose ends to clean up, new mysteries that have been discovered during the course of events to explore or old goals to pursue (for which the current action was a distraction, rather than being the main goal of the campaign).

Besides, loosely knit organizations or wrong-doers with no real leader are more fun, because one or two of them are almost certain to escape to cause trouble later (whereas resourceful and smart PCs usually make quick work of the BBEG before he can even think about escaping).

 

[DonTadow]

Not only do I think BBEGs at the end of scenarios aren't necessary, I'm usually turned off by the idea of a scenario period. Rather than think of a set of adventures as having a beginning and an end, I try to create a campaign where the progression from one challenge to the next is player-driven rather than plot-driven. When the players defeat a bad guy, that "scenario" is only over if they want to pursue the matter no further. Otherwise, there are usually loose ends to clean up, new mysteries that have been discovered during the course of events to explore or old goals to pursue (for which the current action was a distraction, rather than being the main goal of the campaign).

Besides, loosely knit organizations or wrong-doers with no real leader are more fun, because one or two of them are almost certain to escape to cause trouble later (whereas resourceful and smart PCs usually make quick work of the BBEG before he can even think about escaping).

I think the original poster may be getting at the point of any battle ending a scenerio or campaign. When I say BBEG, I include that as any final battle. And he's also referencing campaigns that have a definite ending or must end.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Can a satisfying adventure be designed where one doesn't require there to be a climatic confrontation? Well, I guess you could. But I don't see the point.

The key to any good story is that there is an arc. An introduction, some character and/or story development, the introduction of the conflict and it’s resolution. If I remember correctly from my study of literature, there are three types of conflict. Man against man, man against nature, and man against himself. That without conflict it is not a story, it’s just boring prose. Without the resolution of the conflict, then the story isn’t resolved, and there isn’t a proper arc. Without a proper story arc, it’s not a satisfying resolution.

If the players resolve the situation violently, or non-violently is up to them (to at least attempt) and the GM (to allow). But unless there is something done by the GM to rise the tension in the game, and not really resolve things. A good example of this would be the ending of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. -- Sure, the 'heroes' resolved some things, but they weren't able to defeat the BBEGs.

Given the situation that the party has faced a particular number of challenges all with a common thread, theme or source, that allows the party to tie and associate them all together. Having that party 'win' in such a way that there isn't a climatic resolution for them to be involved with, I would think would be a very hollow victory. It's one thing to be defeated, where the heroes have a chance to redeem themselves and come back for more. It's another to have won with little or no challenge.

Let us say that they party had found out that a secret cabal of magi were behind a plot to destroy the church and the crown by orchestrating situations that convince each other of duplicity and malice, using a thieves guild to execute their schemes; and that the party is thrust into the middle of the situation.

Upon learning the truth of the situation and the party tackles the problems and resolves them. These series of adventures are reward in themselves. But one would think that the party would be concerned as to who is behind the plot. They may first find out that it’s members of the thieves guild who are involved. They may even be brilliant enough to find out it’s actually the true masters of the conspiracy, the cabal of magi. Now, let’s say that the party isn't powerful enough to take on the magi, or even the thieves, and understands this fact. They have two choices. Hopefully, a smart party will realize that they should only confront their enemies when they are powerful enough to do so.

But, when it comes time to deal with their ultimate enemies here, the cabal of magi, after all of their schemes have been thwarted, and the party realizes that they aren’t powerful enough to take on the magi head-on. Perhaps the church and the crown deal with their true enemy themselves, and the party isn't involved at all. Or that no one is powerful enough to take on the magi at all. If that is the case, and there is no resolution. Without any resolution, it wouldn’t be satisfying for anyone involved.

However, if there was a solution. Let’s say that the church and the crown teamed up, sent out their elite forces, and smashed the cabal of magi. With the players pretty much standing around doing nothing. Not even involved. -- I wouldn't think that the party would be satisfied with the resolution. They may understand it, and accept the resolution. But I don't think anyone would get any pleasure or satisfaction from it, because they weren't involved in the final solution.

Thing is, behind every problem, there is conflict. Without conflict, you don’t have an interesting story. If the players aren’t involved in the resolution of the conflict, they are just spectators.

There doesn't have to be a BBEG, or the apocolypse... again! But there does need to be some sort of method or way to allow the PCs to be involved in the resolution of the conflict.

Does it really matter? I would have to say yes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

BBEGs don't work as well in a game as they do in a story unless you want to cheat with dice rolls. They either slaughter the PCs or die in a couple rounds.

Unfortunately, this is what I've found to be true. Heck, sometimes they slaughter a bunch of players and THEN get smacked in the glass jaw and go down for the count.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not only do I think BBEGs at the end of scenarios aren't necessary, I'm usually turned off by the idea of a scenario period. Rather than think of a set of adventures as having a beginning and an end, I try to create a campaign where the progression from one challenge to the next is player-driven rather than plot-driven.

I think this is a great theory, but deeply unsatisfactory in practice. While the overall plot can (and should) continue, these sorts of stories work best in chapters.

Think of a game session: How often do you stop in the middle of a conversation with an NPC and say "OK, next week, he'll answer that sentence, and then we'll continue talking for an hour and then do something else?" Probably not routinely.

I suspect most people like to end a session on a cliffhanger or having resolved something. In a game where the primary form of solving a problem is sticking three feet of sharpened steel into it, that resolution is often combat. And again, while you could end a session after the group kills Random Guard #3, doesn't that seem a bit dissatisfying?

What's more, it's not realistic: Power structures imply someone at the top, probably served by lieutenants. It's not only more dramatically interesting and more satisfying to have the player characters conquer a lieutenant at the end of a long game session, it makes more logical sense than "OK, you kill all the faceless bureaucrats and search their file cabinets. Cross-referencing the results of last year's audit with the most recent census, the group discovers the next place to go." In real life, there'd at least be a middle manager guarding that file cabinet, surrounded by his army of temp-mooks.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think it's good to have at least some kind of climax. What exact form it takes doesn't matter, but it needs to be there.

Unfortunately, this is what I've found to be true. Heck, sometimes they slaughter a bunch of players and THEN get smacked in the glass jaw and go down for the count.

D&D strongly lends itself to paper tigers (in big part, because that's what many players lend themselfs to). I usually build my BBEG and most NPC's really more towards resilience (sometimes I also tck on some extra nonsynergetic levels on, for extra HP without extra killing capability). Works like a charm.

 

[Elfdart]

I for one would like to see a moratorium on BBEGs and Dramatic Climaxes and all that nonsense. It's a cliche that's been done to death and is usually a crutch for those who lack imagination. I remember once our group accidentally went through a module backwards. We missed the obvious starting point, but somehow found the secret entrance to the vampire's tomb instead. So we killed the vampire and spent the rest of the adventure scared you-know-what-less because we were expecting even tougher monsters later. When we found out the vampire was the toughest thing in the tombs, we felt kind of stupid at first, but laughed out loud because the DM had put one over on us.

I'm just sick of every gang of bandits, every goblin raiding party, every ogre or werewolf being part of some Grand Plan by some BBEG.