Does a single source of menace cheapen the game?

[Waylander the Slayer]

I've recently been thinking about the concept of the "Big Bad Evil" in gaming. It is, obviously, critical to have engaging adversaries for the PCs. However, does the concept of a singular "evil" make the game less remarkable (all other things being equal of course). It is important to have a BBEG, but does it add versimilitude to have multiple organizations, bad guys, and agendas? Does it make more sense to have a singular focus, and streamline the game? Is having one main "evil" make things more simplistic?

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I've recently been thinking about the concept of the "Big Bad Evil" in gaming. It is, obviously, critical to have engaging adversaries for the PCs. However, does the concept of a singular "evil" make the game less remarkable (all other things being equal of course). It is important to have a BBEG, but does it add versimilitude to have multiple organizations, bad guys, and agendas? Does it make more sense to have a singular focus, and streamline the game? Is having one main "evil" make things more simplistic?

I've done both in my gaming campaigns. It comes down to how you present it I think. The way I did it for the singular BBEG was to have him being a shadowy force for most of the campaign as he sent waves of his minions, soldiers, and lieutenants at the PCs until they finally discovered who/what he was and then the conclusion of the campaign was a face off between them.

I've done the others in more of a sandbox style game where there are numerous evil organizations with their own hierarchies that the PCs could try to disrupt, ignore, take over, or destroy.

I don't think it's more "simplistic" either way, you can have things as simple or complex as you want them to be in your world. It always comes down to your own personal preferences when you game and what kind of world you are gaming in. I think as long as you and your players are having fun, whether simple or complex, that's the main point of the game.

 

[the Jester]

It's a matter of playstyle preference; there's no right or wrong answer to this.

Personally, I like having lots of different villains/potential adversaries out there.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

It's a matter of playstyle preference; there's no right or wrong answer to this.

Personally, I like having lots of different villains/potential adversaries out there.

My opinion is similar as well. I think it is more player driven really; it is easier for players to deal with the former than the latter, though the latter has more potential as far as actions and flexibility. I've known players who thrive in the latter, and others who get overwhelmed with choices.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Have multiple potential BBEGs, but only have one whose plans are about to come to fruition. That lets players focus on him if they want, but they can work with his rivals if they prefer, and it lets you bring other established players into the vacuum when the current villain is defeated.

 

[prosfilaes]

Did Mordor make the Lord of the Rings simplistic? Even with one BBEG, his minions may not all be on the same page; Evil is known for backstabbing, and one minion may delight in helping the PCs escape to throw egg on another minion's face.

 

[Vascant]

Up until now I have always had campaigned where the players generally focused on a single bad entity though in the current campaign I am gearing up for this will not be the case. The entire campaign takes place underground and revolves around a region refereed to as the Lake of Spires, now the history and how it was originally created present 2 different opposing sides which are both evil, you then have the more selfish and self centered groups which there are 4 of those and then some where along the outer edge of that mess is this lone dwarven stronghold. I really don't think the campaign will ever get to a point where there is a sole focus and will probably be a matter of who is clawing at the parties heels at that moment in time.

Sometimes the objective is simply to live to see tomorrow.

 

[Umbran]

You need to have enough BBEGs out there in the setting to keep all the heroes busy, but not many more.

If you have a setting where the PCs are really the only heroes of note around, you can't have many BBEGs around, or you have a plausibilty problem - why doesn't one of the BBEGs win before the PCs stop them all.

If you have tons of heroes around, but you have only one BBEG, then the villain must be very, very powerful indeed to fend them all off until the PCs get their shot.

Note that there's a difference between what BBEGs you have in the setting, and in the campaign. Settings can be larger (and have BBEGs not deal with in) a particular campaign. A particular camp[aign only needs as many BBEGs as the players can reasonably take on.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

Did Mordor make the Lord of the Rings simplistic? Even with one BBEG, his minions may not all be on the same page; Evil is known for backstabbing, and one minion may delight in helping the PCs escape to throw egg on another minion's face.

interesting point. Though i am not sure how well novels translate into gaming and how apt the comparison is. Take, for example, the dragonlance modules...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ptolus does a good job with this. There are a variety of villains, many of whom have goals that don't interact at all, but each also has rivals that occupy the same niche. I've been playing for years in a fantasy police campaign, and we're mostly focused on one of the mob families -- if we defeat them, others will fill the void instantly, but we have a good focus for what we're doing. Likewise, there are entire parallel campaigns available with other villains, including several potential world-conquerors. I plan on running a parallel campaign with other characters in Ptolus next year, dealing with a whole different slice of the pie, equally compelling, but very different.