Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6773291" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Let me roll back the window a bit (this won't ruin anything for my players, because we'll be talking about it next week). This is intended to be my biggest, longest running, "campaign to end all campaigns." In order to make sure the players get maximum enjoyment, we are going to have a discussion before character creation wherein certain aspects of character creation are discussed. I'm going to ask them things like, "what has traditionally been your favorite character (or type of character) to play?" "if you could only ever play one D&D character again, no matter how many campaigns you play them in, who would it be?" You know how some people will recreate or adapt the same character concept--often with the same name--in a variety of video games or such? That's the character they're going to be playing in this campaign. The one they always identify with and will never get permanently sick of playing. This is going to be an ongoing "Sim Adventurer" game, rather than a specific storyline (though there is a metaplot in the background), and they need to feel invested.Players are free to change their mind on their character, removing one and adding another in if they so choose. But unless they choose to do so, part of the premise of this campaign is that they are guaranteed the opportunity to play their personal iconic character until the end of the campaign (somewhere in the misty future).Their character might end up out of action for a while though. That's a meaningful consequence for failure.As a correction, "dead characters stay dead" is not a consequence that is part of the game. Meaningful consequences doesn't mean permanent (at least in that sense). It means meaningful setbacks (time, money, story elements, or things of personal value to the characters).In addition, the concepts are not contradictory. Limited "consequence-free" safety net was probably a poor phrasing on my part, because there is a consequence--it is a limited, non-renewable resource, so the consequence for using it up is that now you are into the area where consequences are bigger. It would perhaps be better phrases as "gradiated consequences." The limited safety net helps the gradiation start smaller.I haven't, and I'm not sure whether I'd enjoy it or not.Very true. Solo monsters are not viable in 5e...except at very low levels. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Absolutely. It requires a lot of trust in a GM.It depends on the mood of the story, and whether or not there is going to be a sequel.Yep. I love doing this, so I see it more as an opportunity that a burden.Good point. It is an imperfect analogy (like most) designed to illustrate the way a story can take a major and "dark" detour and still get to a heroic end.Sort of. The "story" is about the characters exploring and interacting with a world, while a major overarcing story or metaplot is going on in the background, which they will in some cases be drawn into regardless of their choices, but otherwise have freedom to decide how much they want to interact with it.Perma-death is not an option--that's part of the point, trying to figure out the most satisfying way to balance a few different goals. I think I must have been unclear at some point, since you aren't the only one who got that impression.</blockquote>

Verification