In your campaign, can the PCs "lose"

[Torment]

So I was brainstorming my next campaign, and I realised that I might mess a little bit with the PCs. Basicly take a loved ones for an artifact they're holding. I realise there is a distinct possibility that, due to the fact that they are amazing players and roleplay quite alot, that they might just decide to give up the artifact (after all one of the characters hates the attention the artifact brought to them). Anyway, if they give up the artifact and it ends up falling in the wrong hands, there is a pretty distinct possibility that the BBEG will prevail. So, that being said... does any DM in here have similar experience.

I have a hard time killing PCs, haha. The idea of them losing, I don't know if it's right.

I know there would be always a way to recover, or me fudging things up a tad. But all in all, I'd like to stick to the timeline/story arc I've established... for realism stakes.

 

[kensanata]

But all in all, I'd like to stick to the timeline/story arc I've established... for realism stakes. (emphasis mine)

I think you're playing the wrong game, haha. I think that it would be Ok if the players survive on an individual level but fail at the campaign level. If the big evil wins, it's either the end of the world (campaign ends anyway), or a different world (dark lord reigns). Either way, the game is over, just as if they succeeded. The only thing to avoid is spending time on their hopeless struggles, I think. Realism be damned, it just isn't fun enough.

 

[Torment]

I think you're playing the wrong game, haha.

haha, yeah, i know what you mean. I am not trying to make a simulation. I guess realism was the wrong word... maybe "keeping a sense of coherency" would of been a better word than realism.

 

[Numion]

Basicly take a loved ones for an artifact they're holding.

Next character: orphaned at birth.

Just sayin.. don't over do it.

 

[Firedancer]

Yes, my PCs can fail as opposed to die.

They can see the clues and think "this is too big for me", they can side with the BBEG if they feel that's appropriate. They can pursue their own agendas away from the storyline (the plans continue with or without them).

I don't set out with an encounter designed to completey wipe the floor with them, forcing them to failure, but if they decide on a course of action suitable to their characters and that means BBEG's plans bear fruit, that's fine.

In one game they did decide to side with the usurper, they bargained with him, sold out the heir and reaped the rewards. It took a bit of work to reboot the campaign, but we got a few more weeks out of it. It did scupper a few things, but there's always plenty of games to play and it was reasonable and appropriate.

 

[I'm Cleo]

If you think your players won't mind, go for it. After the BBEG "wins", you can have the PCs take on the role of partisans against his/her corrupt rule. The players might realize that they "screwed up" and have a good time trying to fix things and right they wrongs they've done. Unless the BBEG "winning" was something like a Tharizdun / Cold Death of the Universe thing, of course.

I'm Cleo!

 

[Firedancer]

If you think your players won't mind, go for it. After the BBEG "wins", you can have the PCs take on the role of partisans against his/her corrupt rule. The players might realize that they "screwed up" and have a good time trying to fix things and right they wrongs they've done. Unless the BBEG "winning" was something like a Tharizdun / Cold Death of the Universe thing, of course.

I'm Cleo!

That actually reminds me of my last campaign. The first group of adventurers got mauled and 3 survivors joined the minions.

After discussions I rebooted with a second set of adventurers a little further into the story line.

Meantime the story of the 3 turncoats continued (games played when 2 players were absent). Sometimes they'd get to see the after effects of the core party's actions, other times vice versa. Quite complex, but it all worked out well. At about 10th level the turncoats became npc's as the 2 plotlines merged and they fought the main PC's.

 

[bento]

Who wins if you "stick to the timeline"? That's all in your head and not the players, who the game is for. Otherwise you'd be writing a book.

So, have them give up the McGuffin, but let them figure another way to win. Maybe there's a time factor to get the artifact to work, or it has to be taken to a particular place where ancient and secret rites must be performed.

If you always hand the wins to your players on a silver plate they won't feel challenged over time. Don't make the decisions for them or cushion the blows. "Losing the battle to win the war" is a great way to have your players feel more invested in the outcome.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, the PC's can lose. But, so long as they are alive, they story isn't necessarily complete. Losing a battle does not mean you've lost the war.

For my group, if they knew they couldn't lose, that they could just sit back and the BBEG would still not prevail, they'd lose a lot of enthusiasm for the game. They don't need to feel there's a risk of loss of character life (there is, but they don't need it to act appropriately), but they do need to feel as if what they do makes a difference - and if losing isn't an option, they aren't making much difference.

Your group may differ, of course.

 

[sckeener]

My pcs can fail. I just try not to have it a world shattering failure. No world is toast if they fail. That way the world is just different. Different empires, different cities, different races, different npcs....but not everything is destroyed if they fail.

When I say world is toast, I mean nothing is left. I have no problems running an apocalyptic setting where say Undead have their own cities and the living are scavengers.