Yes, I agree - IME this external focus seems to be a major factor in an epic fantasy's suitability for long term group campaign play. With S&S it's fine for a solo game where the focus is solely on the one Nietzschean PC, but I think it makes long term group play difficult. The original Gygaxian paradigm with a variable player group, self-contained sessions, and some solo sessions, could handle it ok, each PC being the star of their own little show. But it doesn't seem to work well with the usual post-Gygaxian assumption of same-six-players-every-session.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Is 'Good vs Evil' fantasy better for long-term campaigns than more 'amoral' Swords & Sorcery?
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
Yes, I agree - IME this external focus seems to be a major factor in an epic fantasy's suitability for long term group campaign play. With S&S it's fine for a solo game where the focus is solely on the one Nietzschean PC, but I think it makes long term group play difficult. The original Gygaxian paradigm with a variable player group, self-contained sessions, and some solo sessions, could handle it ok, each PC being the star of their own little show. But it doesn't seem to work well with the usual post-Gygaxian assumption of same-six-players-every-session.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I agree. My recent D&D games have been more Sword & Sorcery oriented, and as such I've planned them as more episodic adventures with only loose connection to each other. I've got a bit of a metaplot going on in the background, but it's kind of like the "Badwolf" thing in Doctor Who. It's not a big deal to any particular adventure session.
I have a feeling if I moved that metaplot to the fore, it wouldn't feel like sword & sorcery any more.
I have a feeling if I moved that metaplot to the fore, it wouldn't feel like sword & sorcery any more.
Hmmm, I have two campaigns in the same world. In one, the dynamic is that the party is fighting to protect "the good land" from evil forces, which have varied -- cultists, bandits, werewolves, foreign invaders, and cultist/invaders. Only in one adventure was their opponent not a bad guy (he was a neutral giant, and they made a deal in the end). Most of the "good land's" NPC's are pretty good people -- I don't like the 'every noble is an evil jerk' trope at all, for instance.
In my other campaign, the palette is darker. Their first mission was "Three Days to Kill", about being hiring by bandits (posing as merchants) to kill rival bandits. Their second was coerced into working for King & Country because they were caught with horses the bandits had stolen. From that point, they haven't wanted to work for the Man, and they've been pretty aimless, focused on tactical and once asking, "Wait why did we want to go to the dungeon again?"
So to the OP's question, at least with me as DM, "taking sides" to save the Shire versus "in it for yourselves" Conan style makes for a better campaign. Others mileage no doubt varies.
In my other campaign, the palette is darker. Their first mission was "Three Days to Kill", about being hiring by bandits (posing as merchants) to kill rival bandits. Their second was coerced into working for King & Country because they were caught with horses the bandits had stolen. From that point, they haven't wanted to work for the Man, and they've been pretty aimless, focused on tactical and once asking, "Wait why did we want to go to the dungeon again?"
So to the OP's question, at least with me as DM, "taking sides" to save the Shire versus "in it for yourselves" Conan style makes for a better campaign. Others mileage no doubt varies.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Something I was thinking about today. G vs. E may be a positive in terms of long term campaigns, but they actually make it harder to figure out what you're going to do in your game tonight.
One of the nice things about sword & sorcery characters, if they've been given a decent motivation, like greed for fame or wealth, or curiosity, or a desire to do good (what? you didn't know sword & sorcery characters could be lawful good too?), you put a hole in the ground or a forbidden tomb in their path and they dive right in. On the other hand, in a G v. E campaign, characters have bigger fish to fry than "Hey, I wonder what's in that cave over there? Maybe there's a dragon with gold and jewels!". They need motivation to go in that cave...it needs to somehow serve their overall goal of defeating the dark lord or finding the orb of making the world go back to spinning the right way. Personal fulfillment takes a back seat to that.
For an S&S game, if you know the characters motivations, it's easy to set up an adventure that he will justifiably jump at without feeling like he's "shirking the greater good".
One of the nice things about sword & sorcery characters, if they've been given a decent motivation, like greed for fame or wealth, or curiosity, or a desire to do good (what? you didn't know sword & sorcery characters could be lawful good too?), you put a hole in the ground or a forbidden tomb in their path and they dive right in. On the other hand, in a G v. E campaign, characters have bigger fish to fry than "Hey, I wonder what's in that cave over there? Maybe there's a dragon with gold and jewels!". They need motivation to go in that cave...it needs to somehow serve their overall goal of defeating the dark lord or finding the orb of making the world go back to spinning the right way. Personal fulfillment takes a back seat to that.
For an S&S game, if you know the characters motivations, it's easy to set up an adventure that he will justifiably jump at without feeling like he's "shirking the greater good".
Aenghus
Explorer
Almost by definition, sword and sorcery protagonists are footloose adventures who deliberately avoid forming any but the loosest ties with others. They may be rich at the end of one adventure but conveniently lose it all before the start of the next adventure. This makes them great for unconnected episodic adventures, but not so good for long term plots, which generally involve strengthening ties to elements of the settting and NPCs within that setting.
I find that sword and sorcery themed parties tend not to resurrect fallen members, either bringing in new PCs or just breaking up and starting a new campaign.
I find that long-running campaigns need a strong unifying theme to motivate the players and drive continuity in the face of probable PC casualties. "Good" versus "evil" is simplest and most conventional of these themes, and provides the least barriers to introducing new PCs to an existing group - amoral groups tend to have lots of difficulty introducing new PCs given the extreme level of mistrust and paranoia that often exists in these groups.
"Good" groups are more likely to peacefully resolve their internal differences than amoral groups, who have an alarming tendency to implode over creative differences when stressed in my experience.
Other unifying themes that may work include all the PCs being associated with a particular larger group, such as a noble or merchant house, a mercenary company, a political faction, a country. To be effective these may require more work for the players, and players are never guaranteed to put in that work IMO.
Motivating "good" groups is somewhat easier than "amoral" groups and as mentioned in an early post, amoral groups may tend to retire on becoming wealthy.
I find that sword and sorcery themed parties tend not to resurrect fallen members, either bringing in new PCs or just breaking up and starting a new campaign.
I find that long-running campaigns need a strong unifying theme to motivate the players and drive continuity in the face of probable PC casualties. "Good" versus "evil" is simplest and most conventional of these themes, and provides the least barriers to introducing new PCs to an existing group - amoral groups tend to have lots of difficulty introducing new PCs given the extreme level of mistrust and paranoia that often exists in these groups.
"Good" groups are more likely to peacefully resolve their internal differences than amoral groups, who have an alarming tendency to implode over creative differences when stressed in my experience.
Other unifying themes that may work include all the PCs being associated with a particular larger group, such as a noble or merchant house, a mercenary company, a political faction, a country. To be effective these may require more work for the players, and players are never guaranteed to put in that work IMO.
Motivating "good" groups is somewhat easier than "amoral" groups and as mentioned in an early post, amoral groups may tend to retire on becoming wealthy.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
It's almost the wrong question. I think the issue is more "structured/railroad" versus "player driven/sandbox" campaign styles. I personally don't like player-driven campaigns, not even as a player, but it's the kind of thing that some players demand. IME structured campaigns last longer. It could be that some players in my group like player-driven but are unskilled at it.
Good vs evil campaigns tend to be structured, but you could easily have a more "pragmatic" party running in a structured campaign.
I had a very bad experience with GURPS Traveller, but not because we weren't "good-aligned", but because the character generation system is too detailed. It determines your skills, you don't get to choose your class or anything like that ahead of time. (Except me. I hate die-rolled stats and was given a slightly nerfed point buy guideline instead.) We ended up being a partly of (mostly) amoral money-grubbers who couldn't fight or use a wide variety of non-combat skills but were presented with a pre-gen adventure that expected us to act heroically. I was all for that, but also the only PC who cared about that.
Oddly enough, Warhammer RPG 2e was almost as bad in terms of char-gen, but we didn't run into this problem. I think the setting naturally led toward forming an adventuring party and doing jobs, even if it was for money rather than for "goodness".
Good vs evil campaigns tend to be structured, but you could easily have a more "pragmatic" party running in a structured campaign.
I had a very bad experience with GURPS Traveller, but not because we weren't "good-aligned", but because the character generation system is too detailed. It determines your skills, you don't get to choose your class or anything like that ahead of time. (Except me. I hate die-rolled stats and was given a slightly nerfed point buy guideline instead.) We ended up being a partly of (mostly) amoral money-grubbers who couldn't fight or use a wide variety of non-combat skills but were presented with a pre-gen adventure that expected us to act heroically. I was all for that, but also the only PC who cared about that.
Oddly enough, Warhammer RPG 2e was almost as bad in terms of char-gen, but we didn't run into this problem. I think the setting naturally led toward forming an adventuring party and doing jobs, even if it was for money rather than for "goodness".
Last edited:
Not sure about structured vs player driven - every campaign I've run has been player driven, but they typically tend to have that BBEG at the end of the campaign that needs to be defeated. The characters and their backgrounds drive the story, which develops as they go along. It's just about how you have to get there.
Plus, I hate to use railroad vs sandbox - you can have some of both in most campaigns, but also not make it feel like a railroad or make it feel completely open-ended. (I also hate the term "fluff vs crunch" but that's another thread...)
Paizo's Kingmaker campaign was pretty sanbox-y overall and was probably their second most popular adventure path after Rise of the Runelords, which many have criticized as being about as railroad-y as you can get.
Plus, I hate to use railroad vs sandbox - you can have some of both in most campaigns, but also not make it feel like a railroad or make it feel completely open-ended. (I also hate the term "fluff vs crunch" but that's another thread...)
Paizo's Kingmaker campaign was pretty sanbox-y overall and was probably their second most popular adventure path after Rise of the Runelords, which many have criticized as being about as railroad-y as you can get.
I don't agree with that framing at all.
A game can be player-driven whilst still having a clear value-focused goal for the PCs - it's just that the players, rather than the GM, provide the relevant focus.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
In my comments above, I also mentioned player skill. You need players who can set a common goal, and I've never seen that happen without the DM giving them one. Instead, you get one goal per player. (Well, with the players in my group. Perhaps other groups have more skill at this.)
A "fight versus evil" is a pretty common DM-imposed goal, but there's lots of other ways to structure a campaign.
