Idea

[Don Incognito]

I haven't exactly been AROUND all that often of late, mostly because real life is currently quite busy kicking my ass. But also because I am just BRIMMING with ideas.

Specifically, a super-adventure.

I think it's about time we had one, don't you? I've got a big ol' honking monster in the works, and it will take at least four (4!) adventuring parties to take it down (not literally a big monster, but a monster of an adventure). Problem is, I am far too busy to run four adventures simultaneously.

Simply put, I'm asking for help. At least 3 DMs (in addition to myself) will be needed.

Of course, there will be much brainstorming and meeting of minds. I'm just putting it out there to gauge interest.

 

[stonegod]

Specifically, a super-adventure

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Nothing against Don, but a super-adventure is a very dicey and tricky thing to do in a Living campaign. The last (and only) super-addy every tried in a Living World practically killed Living ENWorld 3.5.

Super-addys are difficult to pull off in a living world for several reasons:
- Coordination is *very* difficult. Different posting speeds between games makes this near impossible.
- Its very fragile. One addy dies, the rest become weaker. This is especially true if one DM is running multiple of them. In the doomed mega-adventure in LEW, one DM had 3-4 games and when they disappeared (stranding 16-20 players), that was *bad*.
- It ties up most of your PC population all at once. One nice thing about non-synched games is that they start/end at their own rate. If you can solve problems 1 and 2, you still have a very empty Tavern while a large portion of your player base is tied into the same super-adventure.

I understand the appeal of a mega-adventure, but having seen one blow up spectacularly (I am not over-exaggerating the damage it did to LEW), I'd be very cautious about trying one again. Nothing kills the momentum of a group like a massive potential blow-up.

[Ph8008, Boddynock, and a few other from LEW can also comment on the doomed Mega-Adventure]

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, at least Don isn't talking about running more than one adventure so the risk of suddenly stranding a large amount of players is no bigger than with any other adventures.

So I guess it depends just what you you have in mind, Don. Any details?

 

[Don Incognito]

The idea? War. War has come to the Transitive Isles. An unnamed location will be attacked by a massive host of evil badguys, and a call will be sent out: someone, ANYONE, help us. Please.

As is the case with war, there is simply too much to do for one single adventuring party. The PCs who agree, whether it be out of civic duty or simply the hopes of looting some riches in the process, will be divided into squads and sent to different key locations in the front, each of which will have a unique problem that needs to be solved.

This isn't as much a super adventure as it is four adventures that go on in the same place at roughly the same time against a common foe.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well that ain't bad.

This is basically 4 DM agreeing to run 4 independants adventures agains the same backdrop.

The trick then is to find enough way to connect what's happening in each adventures to make this more than a gimmick without making the adventures dependant on each other.

 

[renau1g]

I agree with stonegod, I wasn't around for this, but it is hard enough to get a mini-adventure to see it through to the end, let alone a mid length adventure x 4 ...

The idea is great and I thought about it when we were kicking off LEB, but I know Graf liked it (and now disappeared). stonegod's caution is well founded and I'd be hesitant to try it here.

 

[covaithe]

Add my voice to those shuddering in horror at the memory of the complete disaster that was LEW's mega-adventure.

Complete. Disaster. Seriously, it would have been less destructive to the living world if the dracolich *had* returned and conquered the world, enslaving all life as we know it.

I don't think it's theoretically impossible to succeed at a project that attempted to provide some coordination between three or four thematically related adventures run by different DMs, as long as the limitations of PbP and the living setting are kept firmly in mind. But such a project would be very, very difficult, and quite risky.

The only way I can think of for it to work is to treat it as a world-spanning plot event, that effectively changes the tone of the setting, possibly permanently, but not catastrophically. For example, in far-off Valhyr, an einherjar warlord (*) and his shaman finally get backing from a powerful demon, who gives them a way to reliably get their longships to Daunton and back. They start raiding parties. This puts Daunton on a wartime footing. Taxes are raised, diplomatic missions to the Imperium and the Empire of Jade are undertaken, asking for help. Taking out the warlord, shaman, and their demon backer could be a long campaign arc with side adventures involving several DMs and whatnot, but if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be the end of the setting. Daunton would still stand, though changed in character somewhat. There would still be a need for adventurers to keep the crazy cultists and the vengeful fey under control, and to chase down Lauto's debtors and so forth.

(*) I may be butchering setting elements; sorry. I didn't look this stuff up.

The keys, as I see them, would be:

• involve multiple DMs from the start. If one DM tries to do the whole thing themselves, that's a disaster already. No running 3 adventures at once; frankly I think 2 is too many.
• Don't try to coordinate the start of the related adventures. Let them start independently and organically, like other living world adventures.
• Keep the scope limited. No world destroying. If the PCs fail, or give up, or simply disappear, there should still be a way forward for the setting. Maybe not a pleasant one, but we should still be able to play and have fun.
• Keep the individual adventures short and limited in scope. Think of a TV series consisting of 20 half-hour episodes, not an epic trilogy of three-hour movies. This just isn't the medium for it.

I still think this isn't necessarily a good idea....

 

[Boddynock]

Yep, I'm another one who's still counting the cost of the Mega-Fiasco on LEW.

I suspect that such wide-ranging plotlines work when you've got a single, consistent authority base (I'm thinking of Living Arcanis here) to drive them but are not particularly well-suited to PBM.

Besides, the Transitive Isles has been running for - what? - one year? That's barely long enough to run a single adventure or perhaps two on PBM, in my experience. So I'd suggest that there's still plenty of scope for exploring the setting in its original form, without seeking to turn it on its ear.

Anyway, I'm a complete newcomer to L4W, so I don't have a lot of cred in the Isles ... but the fact that you have a bunch of people like stonegod and covaithe and me turning pale at the mention of such a thing might give you a clue as to some of the problems with super-adventures.

I think I'm going to go away now and have a nice cup of tea! Or possibly a large scotch.

 

[renau1g]

Ohhh... can I have some of that scotch ?

 

[Phoenix8008]

Well you don't need me to repeat what Stonegod, Covaithe and Boddynock said concerning the LEW Super-Fiasco. That said, I have two points to mention which are repeating things already said. One which Don said already and one which Stonegod brought up.

...it will take at least four (4!) adventuring parties... At least 3 DMs (in addition to myself) will be needed.

- Its very fragile. One addy dies, the rest become weaker. This is especially true if one DM is running multiple of them. In the doomed mega-adventure in LEW, one DM had 3-4 games and when they disappeared (stranding 16-20 players), that was *bad*.

So right there is a vote of confidence from me that Don is already thinking ahead of the curve of where we were back when this came up in LEW. Covaithe covered several other points as well that would make it possible I believe to pull off such a feat.

*Only one adventure per DM. (This could still get broken if the original DM quit and the game judge had to pick it up when they were already a DM for one of the connected adventures.)

*Make sure they can start and end independently. If any of them rely on any others time-wise it won't work out.

Those are the big two for me. Tying up most of the population of adventurers at once wouldn't be a big deal if it was four separate adventures. And if this mega-adventure is going to work it really needs to be just four separate adventures linked thematically. If it can be that, then I think it could work. If the adventures are not directly connected, then it won't be an issue for a DM of one of these adventures to have a character playing in one of the others as well.

So there are my thoughts on the matter. I look forward to other discussion and to see what happens. If it could be pulled off, I'd love to be a part of it. Don't know if Id have time to DM one of the adventures, but as a player I'd love to be involved!