Do scenarios need a BBEG?

[Ourph]

I'm not wondering if you need a Pit Fiend Overlord behind every evil in the world, more that whether the end of, say, a particular campaign thread, needs to be climactic or not.

A climax doesn't mean that the PCs win. It means that events are pushed to one critical situation where the outcome changes everything. That might be that the PCs lose, but the point is that things after the situation are different from before.

There are definitely climaxes in the games I run. I guess the main point I differ on is the phrase "events are pushed to one critical situation where the outcome changes everything", which indicates to me that the DM is orchestrating a specific climactic moment. Instead of arranging the events of the campaign to support a particular climactic moment, I tend to let the campaign produce climaxes organically. There have been lots of times when a simple random encounter or a standard "nothing special" encounter have been climactic simply because other events in the campaign have made them so. There's nothing inherently better about that method, but I find it works great for me. My players don't seem to think the game lacks for excitement or interest because there are no pre-planned critical encounters with mastermind NPCs at the end of a storyline - so I think there's definitely no "need" for BBEG to create a fun and engaging game.

 

[gizmo33]

That's just crazy. This is a role playing game where players take on the roles of charachters with stories to them.

True, the "role playing" comes before the game in the word RPG, but there's nothing about roleplaying in itself that requires that you have plot outlines. Roleplaying is not synonomous with story-telling. "Roleplaying" in other situations can have no plot at all (like in therapy).

In fact, the purpose of roleplaying in both therapy and RPGs (at least according to one style of gaming) is to *discover* the results of a character who acts a certain way - not to predetermine those results before hand and then play out some farce whose conclusion has already been determined.

And a game typically is defined as something where you make meaningful choices and the outcome is not pre-determined.

Else you might as well just be playing dungeons and dragons the board game.

Or maybe you might as well be writing a novel rather than playing a game? My guess is not. But I think that "story vs. game" is one of those "gamer alignment issues". Everybody has a sweet spot for how much railroading they can tolerate in their games. All DnD games have some amount of railroading in them, even if it's just "you all meet in a tavern" at the beginning of the game.

The thing about "climax" is that it's a literature concept, and not really a game concept. There is no "climax" in monopoly or soccer, other than what might arise from random chance. So the more emphasis you put on it, the more towards the story end of the spectrum you are, and the more subjective (less universal) the opinions that follow will be.

There are DMs in this world whom just roll items off of tables and there are DMs who put effort into making the "game" an experience as it was meant to be. Whether you're a hack and slasher or serious role playing group there should always be a reason to the madness, a story to why its being done.

I've seen games where people sit around and thespianize all night and never swing a sword or roll a dice or anything. I think to myself "who in the heck would want to spend their time like that?", but it's a foolish question on my part because the answer is obviously "those people". On the other hand, there are (or at least were) people who put a lot of efforts into those tables that you talk about. I don't think the game experience was originally meant to be anything like what you're describing - Gygax has said enough about the early history IMO to contradict what you're saying.

Is there a point to having a "reason to the madness" in a game if you take away my ability to make meaningful choices for my character? What if my character decides to do something that goes against the plot outline? What if the results of my characters decisions makes the events of the campaign seem disjointed and un-story-like? Is the DM then obligated to railroad me back on course because someone on the internet is going to tell him he has a bad campaign? If so, what am I really playing? A game?

It would be misleading for me to suggest that the purpose of DnD is to go around and kill stuff and take it's treasure - but that would be closer to the mark that to suggest that the game is somehow a story-telling process. The roots of RPGs are certainly more about monster-bashing, and I think the jury is out on whether strong plot-lines make for better games. Game and story are two ends of the spectrum and I don't think either one is the right answer for everyone.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Sessions don't end in the middle of an NPC/PC discussion but they often end at some random place in the dungeon because we've run out of time.

I found that when I end the sessions at a cliffhanger... or at a natural and logical place to cut things off. (Such as between two adventures, when the first one has ended); is usually the best way to interrupt the game. When I do the cliffhanger thing, the players come back to the table (next week, next month, whatever) more readily remembering where we left off last session, as well as being more geared up to play again. "So, let's see... we had just killed the werewolves last session, and you said just before we stopped that we could see a swarm of bats coming towards us? -- Yeah, I cast Silence in the area in front of them!"

I don't think of sessions as installments in a weekly TV adventure show, they're just game sessions where we pick up with wherever the game stopped last time. Occasionally, I'll call a game at what I call a "good stopping point" like before the PCs open the next door in a dungeon or right after a fight where I know some of the PCs are likely to level up, but I've never even considered manipulating the game to end the session after an important and climatic encounter. I don't see the need. It doesn't seem dissatisfying at all to end the session after killing Random Guard #3 to me. As a DM, where the session ends makes no difference. As a player, I'm just happy if the session ends with my PC alive.

Try it sometime. Try figuring out how long it's going to take the party to go through various planned sections of the adventures. Now, I'm not saying that you should cut off the adventures in pre-determined locations, regardless if the party is slow as molasses, or burning through the adventure. But, try thinking of the story-arc in a series of contained chapters and adventures, and see how your players react.

Usually, if I end a game early (or late), it gives the players time to talk out-of-game like what they thought of Eragon or whatever else has gotten these geeks all giddy. Or I get their feedback on the game and see what they like about it, or not.

I don't buy the realism argument. I wouldn't consider the nominal leader of a bandit gang a "BBEG". He's just the guy in the group who calls the shots. To me, a BBEG implies some sort of higher-challenge mastermind (like a high level NPC or a "boss monster") and AFAIC the idea that every group has such a leader and is built on a regimented hierarchy is what's unrealistic.

Unrealistic? That there are always natural leaders to any group or hierachy? *blinks* I think contrary to that idea is unnatural and unrealistic. Within any group of 'beings' that congregate for any purpose would gravitate to a model where there is a leader. Only with a 'hive' mentality would there not be a leader necessarily. -- Though I do agree that a nominal leader of a bandit gang may not be considered a BBEG. He is the guy that calls the shots, and should at least the CHA to reflect that, if not a feat like Leadership, or have enough ranks in Diplomancy and/or Intimidate to do the job.

If you're talking about LE monsters and NPCs maybe it makes more sense, but for other groups without that alignment, a less regimented and organized structure seems perfectly natural. I usually try to steer away from using complex organizations with a single mastermind as a behind-the-scenes puppetmaster in my campaigns at any rate. To me (and from what I have heard in idle chitchat from my players, they agree) game elements like that are too cliched and restrictive to be appealing.

Of course, in any situation where we are dealing with a group/organization that is lawful, they would naturally gravitate towards having a leader. Regardless of being good or evil, the idiom that the cream rises to the top hopefully holds true. That for whatever reason there is a leader in power calling the shots. However, if that leader is inept, there should be a reason for it, because there is no logical explanation as to why incompetent 'masterminds' are running around mucking things up. Sure it may be amusing to have the BBEG a bumbling idiot. But leaders are leaders for a reason. Those incapable of doing the job don’t have it for long.

You might consider it cliché that there is a mastermind behind some powerful organization. I consider it logical. Given the idea that there are powerful and intelligent beings out there, that are equally as capable as they are ruthless and evil... just as others are compassionate and good... is hopefully an axiom you can agree upon. Given this axiom, you then have to ask: Why wouldn’t someone try to organize the crime syndicates, or organize the various powerful groups that are able to keep the peace in a particular city?

Sure, you can steer away from campaigns where there are secret puppetmasters. But the fact is they are out there, doing their thing. Trying very hard to make you believe they don’t exist. -- Plus, it makes things more interesting.

In general, the challenges I throw at my players are more along the lines of "Here's a dangerous place. Here's a reason to go there. Decide what you want to do. Go!" or "These people are doing X, these other people over here are doing Y. You can either take sides, form a 3rd faction or try to avoid getting involved. Go!". And as I said before, usually these challenges are either extensions of or based on ramifications from previous events in the campaign, so there's no real "scenario" with a beginning and an end; the events are extensions of the ongoing action. My experience has been that this kind of organization is far from dissatisfying. YMMV.

I tend to be a little more heavy-handed and beat my players over their collective heads with the railroad tracks that I'm laying down for them. I tend to say: "Here's a dangerous place -- here's a hint where you can get more information on how dangerous it is, if you want. -- Here's a reason to go there. -- Here's a few personal modivational points for one or two...or more characters to go there. -- Here's an idea of what will happen if you don't go there. -- Decide what you want to do."

I think it's just good GMing if you lay out the carrots for the players, and let them choose the one they want. It gives them the illusion that they have freedom and free will. Usually, for me, any carrots left behind either become problems on their own that the players may or may not have to face sometime in the future. Or they just get recycled for some other carrot-patch of choices the players will come upon later on down the road.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

I've seen a lot of "as long as there's some kind of climax" posts, but how do you handle the end of a session, adventure, or campaign where the PCs actually lose? While anti-climatic endings leave PCs feeling disappointed, what about losses?

Losses are the best! Whenever I have a new group of players, I try to lay some sort of defeat or loss on them, without having to outright kill a party member. (I usually try to only kill a party member if they are being extremely stoopid!)

If the players manage to lose on their own, so be it. It's a learning experience. But if I lay a beating on them, and they are outwitted, outmatched, and outclassed... usually because they didn't bother to research and learn enough about their enemies. This is the sort of thing I like to do at least once to my players. I don't like to do it often, because it may seem like I'm stacking the deck against my players. I don't want that. I want them to know that their are more powerful and cunning creatures in this world, and they are a part of the world. They can fail like anyone else. That as a GM, I'm not going to hand things to them on a silver platter, they have to fight for them. The reward is that much sweeter.

Usually I pull a switch-a-roo on the players. They are in the situation to solve the problems they've become the champions for; (either their own problems or someone else's). Finding out who the BBEG is, they go off to smash his evil plans, and solve their problems. Along the way, they may solve the smaller problems, or other problems that crop up. But, in the process they are limited in their success. Ultimately, the BBEG is able to accomplish *something* or at the very least, able to get away.

Ultimately, if I've played my cards right, I will have made a character that the players truly lothe and yet are weary enough to not attempt to take on their villain head on.

A huge, Final Fantasy 7-type campaign occurs. The BBEG, his Lts, and his minions do heinous things to the PCs (and of course the PCs do a lot to thwart their plans). It comes down to the end, and the group is facing the last guy and his two warriors. Not only has this guy burned the towns where the PCs have come from, he's managed to murder people dear to them (family member, spouse, ect) for all they've done in ruining his plans. The battle is too heated, too bitter to end with mere words. Blood must be drawn.

And... the PCs lose. One escapes with his life, while the others died heroically. This one (the rogue haha) has no plans of going back for revenge because, quite frankly, the beating they took scared him enough that he's not going back after that BBEG again.

So, you're sitting there after what the players have considered an epic game, but they lost and it's over. The BBEG will rebuild and carry out his evil plan, and it would be too cheesy to have each player roll a new character to take up the exact same battle. You fold up your DM screen and you notice your buddies all looking forlorn, as though you just kicked their new puppy. A few grumble, some look away, and one of them is looking at your head like it's the bag of doritos.....

How do you handle THOSE kinda climaxes? The bad ones.

Well, if I was ever given that situation to deal with... heck, who am I kidding? I would have never allowed things to go that far. I would have started fudging the first sign of trouble. Especially when it comes to the epic end battle. I think is more important to concentrate on the story when the players get to the climax. I don't even look at HPs of my villains. I just run the battle. Occationally, I'll track the BBEG's HP if the party is really kicking butt. But if it looks like the combat is going to end too soon, I'll prolong it. If it looks like the party is going to loose, I'll fudge some.

 

[DonTadow]

True, the "role playing" comes before the game in the word RPG, but there's nothing about roleplaying in itself that requires that you have plot outlines. Roleplaying is not synonomous with story-telling. "Roleplaying" in other situations can have no plot at all (like in therapy).

In fact, the purpose of roleplaying in both therapy and RPGs (at least according to one style of gaming) is to *discover* the results of a character who acts a certain way - not to predetermine those results before hand and then play out some farce whose conclusion has already been determined.

And a game typically is defined as something where you make meaningful choices and the outcome is not pre-determined.



Or maybe you might as well be writing a novel rather than playing a game? My guess is not. But I think that "story vs. game" is one of those "gamer alignment issues". Everybody has a sweet spot for how much railroading they can tolerate in their games. All DnD games have some amount of railroading in them, even if it's just "you all meet in a tavern" at the beginning of the game.

The thing about "climax" is that it's a literature concept, and not really a game concept. There is no "climax" in monopoly or soccer, other than what might arise from random chance. So the more emphasis you put on it, the more towards the story end of the spectrum you are, and the more subjective (less universal) the opinions that follow will be.



I've seen games where people sit around and thespianize all night and never swing a sword or roll a dice or anything. I think to myself "who in the heck would want to spend their time like that?", but it's a foolish question on my part because the answer is obviously "those people". On the other hand, there are (or at least were) people who put a lot of efforts into those tables that you talk about. I don't think the game experience was originally meant to be anything like what you're describing - Gygax has said enough about the early history IMO to contradict what you're saying.

Is there a point to having a "reason to the madness" in a game if you take away my ability to make meaningful choices for my character? What if my character decides to do something that goes against the plot outline? What if the results of my characters decisions makes the events of the campaign seem disjointed and un-story-like? Is the DM then obligated to railroad me back on course because someone on the internet is going to tell him he has a bad campaign? If so, what am I really playing? A game?

It would be misleading for me to suggest that the purpose of DnD is to go around and kill stuff and take it's treasure - but that would be closer to the mark that to suggest that the game is somehow a story-telling process. The roots of RPGs are certainly more about monster-bashing, and I think the jury is out on whether strong plot-lines make for better games. Game and story are two ends of the spectrum and I don't think either one is the right answer for everyone.

SIt down for this one and try not to freak out. I know you may fear the "storyline" like the plague becaue that may involve some serious DM preperation, but no matter what you do in any game there is always a storyline. The difference is whether or not you want an organized storyline or something more organic. This is not just limited to role playing games but any game. IF i'm playing monopoly the storyline could be how I"ve managed to get the reds and greens and will cindy stop me from getting the oranges. You don't get away from the storyline. Even if its a minor one like we're going up the road to kill the troll for no reason, thats the storyline, even though its success won't lead to anything in the future.

Climax is not a "literal term only", though you are correct that it is a term in literature. There are many climaxes in many things with games being just one of them. Some of these things I will have to wait until you are older to explain. To attempt to limit an old word like climax is a very unenglish thing to do, as much so as saying that it didn't exist until books existed.

Whereas you can say what you won't want to do, I can say that every body who plays role playing enjoys the story in some way from the hack and slasher whom just wants to kill something to the thespian. Somewhere in every session you'll fine that story.

Now, a majority of gamers enjoy the story to be organized. I can say this because most things sold for our hobby is sold to help add to the organization of a DM, whether its well chaptered books on crunch or fluff, or role playing game aids. I rarely have seen the book on dungeons and dragons called how to play the game like 52 card pickup.

Now, being a natural minority I usually hate being in the majority, but the way this thing has been going for the last 30 years has a good ring to it. But if it makes you feel better to pretend there is no actual story to the game (again that may require more work) by all means do so. But when you take the hands away from your eyes you'll see that one is still there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't buy the realism argument. I wouldn't consider the nominal leader of a bandit gang a "BBEG". He's just the guy in the group who calls the shots.

It is a realism argument: In everything from families of meerkats to street gangs, the guy in charge is, in fact, Big and Bad. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in charge.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh please.

When you say that most of the people on this thread lack imagination, that's insulting.

Pirates, bandits and other miscreants often (a) don't have leaders at all

While you're perfectly free to do this in a fantasy world, it is wildly untrue in the real world.

 

[Odhanan]

There are DMs in this world whom just roll items off of tables and there are DMs who put effort into making the "game" an experience as it was meant to be. Whether you're a hack and slasher or serious role playing group there should always be a reason to the madness, a story to why its being done.

Since we are on some RPG theory tangents, I'd like to precise for the record that I think this kind of opinion is nonsense. There is nothing that makes game sessions with less dice rolls any more "serious" or "mature" than those that use more. There's no ambivalence between dice rolls and role-playing immersion. When you tell me that when I hack'n'slash I wouldn't be a "mature" or "serious" player, I take this as an insult. Please mate, refrain yourself on such judgments of value.

Role-playing immersion is not a panacea. It's not an end by and for itself. It's not the only way to have fun. The rest, as the doomed prince once said, is silence, as far as I'm concerned.

Post Scriptum: Also, I must say that personally I dislike more and more the use of the word "story" when talking about a role-playing game adventure or campaign. In my opinion, role-playing games aren't about "telling stories". They're about living the fictional events as if you, through your persona/character, were there at the moment they occur. The "story" is what happens after the game's been played and I tell what happened to someone who wasn't there. Seems like a detail, really, but that avoids a lot of misunderstandings as far as phenomenons like "rail-roading", "narrativism" and such are concerned.

 

[DonTadow]

Since we are on some RPG theory tangents, I'd like to precise for the record that I think this kind of opinion is nonsense. There is nothing that makes game sessions with less dice rolls any more "serious" or "mature" than those that use more. There's no ambivalence between dice rolls and role-playing immersion. When you tell me that when I hack'n'slash I wouldn't be a "mature" or "serious" player, I take this as an insult. Please mate, refrain yourself on such judgments of value.

Role-playing immersion is not a panacea. It's not an end by and for itself. It's not the only way to have fun. The rest, as the doomed prince once said, is silence, as far as I'm concerned.

Post Scriptum: Also, I must say that personally I dislike more and more the use of the word "story" when talking about a role-playing game adventure or campaign. In my opinion, role-playing games aren't about "telling stories". They're about living the fictional events as if you, through your persona/character, were there at the moment they occur. The "story" is what happens after the game's been played and I tell what happened to someone who wasn't there. Seems like a detail, really, but that avoids a lot of misunderstandings as far as phenomenons like "rail-roading", "narrativism" and such are concerned.

Did I say that or did you misread?
My statement is that no matter what you're always doing a story if you're playing dungeons and dragons. whether they are about telling the story or not, the story is there regardless thats the current argument. Story and plot are not eqivalent to rail-roading and narrativism. If this was the case, yo ucould broaden it out that whenever you throw a monster in front of an opponent you're railroading them to deal with it in some way. A decent plot by a decent DM is very broad and weaved with what the players want and decide.

 

[Odhanan]

My statement is that no matter what you're always doing a story if you're playing dungeons and dragons.

That's the statement which my PS addressed specifically. I do not agree that playing a D&D game is "telling a story". Playing D&D is putting oneself in a situation under the guise of a fictional character as it occurs. "Telling the story" can happen after the game has been played.

Story and plot are not eqivalent to rail-roading and narrativism.

I didn't imply anything of that sort, indeed. What I am implying, however, is that the notion that RPG sessions "tell a story" increases the risk of falling into such sample traps. Idem about finding oneself, as DM, falling short because the players "aren't serious" and "don't want to play the way the story's supposed to unfold".

I come to really reject the notion that RPGs would be any sort of modern "storytelling".