Do you always need to save the world

[Henry]

I do "save the city" stories, or "rescue the kingdom from usurpers" stories, but rarely save the world stories unless it's Star Wars, because, hey, it's Star Wars. It's what you do.

 

[Umbran]

So why do the plots need to destroy everything eventually?

In this case, because the Powers That Be in the setting desire to do so, and are powerful enough to do so if not opposed.

And, in general, as the PCs rise in power, in many games plots of lesser scope are simply no longer a plausible challenge. Heck, as they rise in power, sitting in one place and having greater and greater dangers come up becomes implausible. I had to Have Wyatt Earp ask the PCs to take a vacation, because the things that are coming after the PCs are capable of flattening Dodge City as they work their way to the PCs...

When the whole world/universe is at stake, its basically a given that the PCs will win.

Not in my game, it isn't. They only narrowly missed allowing the world to be destroyed once already, and don't even know it.

The end of the world, after all, would also be the end of the campaign.

Yeah, and? My campaigns have a beginning, a middle, and an end. I new when I started there'd be an end. There is no, "I can't let them lose, because then it would *end*!" When it ends, we move on to another game, is all.

 

[Reyemile]

Not in my game, it isn't. They only narrowly missed allowing the world to be destroyed once already, and don't even know it.

Yeah, and? My campaigns have a beginning, a middle, and an end. I new when I started there'd be an end. There is no, "I can't let them lose, because then it would *end*!" When it ends, we move on to another game, is all.

Honestly? I don't believe you. It sounds good and tough to say things like that, but DMs who actually say "sorry, you picked up the FAKE MacGuffin of Doom, not the real one. World blows up. New campaign?" tend not to stay DMs for very long.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

In most fiction of today, books, films, movies, video games and also RPG stories/adventure paths it, in the end, always comes down to you or the group saving the world.

That's not true of the games I run, the games I play in, or most of the fiction that I read. In fact, rarely does saving the world play a part in any of those things for me.

 

[Umbran]

Honestly? I don't believe you.

My game is not Tinkerbell. It does not require your belief to live.

It sounds good and tough to say things like that, but DMs who actually say "sorry, you picked up the FAKE MacGuffin of Doom, not the real one. World blows up. New campaign?" tend not to stay DMs for very long.

Well, as noted above, I think "save the world" really comes late in character life. Depending on advancement in your game, you can run for years before you really hit the point where the world is being saved.

Plus, "you made one mistake, complete fail" is poor design for pretty much any scope of action. Doesn't matter if you are saving the world, saving your home city, or fighting the gang the next block over. If complete failure hinges on one single act, you'll have problems.

 

[Nagol]

Honestly? I don't believe you. It sounds good and tough to say things like that, but DMs who actually say "sorry, you picked up the FAKE MacGuffin of Doom, not the real one. World blows up. New campaign?" tend not to stay DMs for very long.

I guess 35 years isn't too long in the scheme of things.

I don't roll dice where I won't accept the result; I don't introduce situations I won't follow through on.

My last D&D campaign saw the Material Plane being threatened by a parasite sapping the energies normally flowing between it and the Outer Planes. The PCs discovered there were three outcomes:

1. They manage to find a way to stop the parasite and life goes on
2. They fail to stop the parasite and a group of evil spell casters (including potentially one PC) manages to capture a fraction of the power and become the Sorcerer Kings of a new Dark Sun setting
3. Everyone fails and everything dies a slow lingering death (the PCs found a plane undergoing the last throes of such a death).

I was comfortable with pursuing any of the outcomes to their conclusion and my players know it.

Besides. a drastic change like that (or like the time the PCs failed to stop the nuclear war in a CHAMPIONS game I ran) doesn't mean the campaign has to end -- it just means the campaign will be very different if the table wants to continue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So I want to know what type of stories do you run? "Save the World" stories? Or something else (what exactly?). And how did that work out for you?

I have run a variety of stories centered around bringing about the end of the world, as a sort of Ragnarok-like battle of the dragons and gods is inherent to my campaign setting. To me, that adds a different feel, and of particular importance it establishes the experience of living in the world as finite. That's different than saving the world and going back to the status quo; "reset button" narratives I think might be part of the predictability you're talking about.

However, I've also moved on to narrowing the focus and making the stakes more character-based. It's harder to do. Particularly in D&D, you have to justify to busy adults why they should be spending four hours of their week immersed in your story. That story has to feel big and important. But I think a skilled DM can sell smaller stakes as being compelling and important.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Plus, "you made one mistake, complete fail" is poor design for pretty much any scope of action.

Really? Tell that to Nik Wallenda.

 

[howandwhy99]

World saving (or at least world altering) adventures are going to be applicable to only the highest level characters. Thinking that stuff has to be part of every adventure is just seeing how the crazy-high-level foes have their fingers in a lot of pies. It isn't necessarily that everyone is a part of HYDRA or Cobra or the cult of Tharizdun. Those guys just get around a bit. And when the PCs are near the end of their careers and banish Iuz to the Abyss it's something to talk about. If it's the only thing to talk about, then I think they missed so much of everything else going on in the world.

 

[Janx]

So why do the plots need to destroy everything eventually?

There are 7 billion people on the planet. 7 billion goals and plans to achieve them.

Most of them do not intersect with YOU. In fact, whether they succeed or fail, you will never notice.

The only goals that matter are the ones that collide with you and your goals.

That collision is by definition, inherently destructive to YOUR status quo. Destroying your job, your house, your family, your town, your country, your planet are just larger scale encapsulations of the same end damage, which is your status quo is disrupted in a way that you won't like. Your whole world can be shattered by a chance encounter with a man with a gun in a dark parking lot.