PC Centered Campaign
- Thread starter Stormborn
- Start date
The PC's IMC tend to be the movers and shakers, even if they don't know it. i.e. One of my players recently found out that he is the direct descendent of the man who was sacrificed in the Invoked Devastation ritual, and now people are hunting him for the same purpose.
I usually have a meta-plot for each character, and run adventures linked to those. Very often the characters' story-arcs are the only active ones in the game.
I usually have a meta-plot for each character, and run adventures linked to those. Very often the characters' story-arcs are the only active ones in the game.
Wombat
First Post
In my campaigns it is usually the case of the PCs being central to their story, while certain NPCs are central to their own stories. In other words, there are other large things happening in the world that have nothing to do with the PCs. The world was here before them and will be here long after them; they are links in the chain of history, imporant links, mind you, but not "If Not For Them There Would Be No World" links.
Some events will happen no matter what the PCs do -- and in some cases they are not even interested in these events. What is important to them is their own quest.
In a lot of ways I see the PCs like Icarus in the Brughel painting -- Icarus may fall, and may even make a large splash, but a lot of other people are just getting through the world or have their own problems to worry about.
So, too, the PCs.
Some events will happen no matter what the PCs do -- and in some cases they are not even interested in these events. What is important to them is their own quest.
In a lot of ways I see the PCs like Icarus in the Brughel painting -- Icarus may fall, and may even make a large splash, but a lot of other people are just getting through the world or have their own problems to worry about.
So, too, the PCs.
Other. Because while my campaigns start off with characters getting caught up in events (like in Star Wars), the characters soon find themselves helping to cause the events (unlike in Star Wars).
One of my favorite DMing moments was this: What started off being a simple mission to save a the world from a cult got a bit more complicated when the PCs decided to release an imprisioned goddess in exchange for a wish. (She failed to mention that she'd been exiled with a chip on her shoulder and was ready to go back and rock the underworld.) And when they figured out what they did, they kind of went "Aw dang..." and made me cackle with glee as they had just seeded the second part of the adventure.
That was one thing I really liked about the Last Exile series... the lead characters started off small in a world they couldn't really comprehend and then had to live with and deal with the consequences of their choices throughout the series. What seemed like a "We should do this" early in the series became a "Oh ****, we're responsible for doing that..." before the end.
Alternately, it's like a parent/child relationship: the PCs as children start off by doing what the bigger, older world says. But once the PCs have grown up a bit, the bigger older world tends to take their advice on what coffee to try at the local coffee shop and what kind of upgrades to put in their computer. (Okay, so that analogy went pretty much all wrong... but it kind of works for D20 Modern?)
One of my favorite DMing moments was this: What started off being a simple mission to save a the world from a cult got a bit more complicated when the PCs decided to release an imprisioned goddess in exchange for a wish. (She failed to mention that she'd been exiled with a chip on her shoulder and was ready to go back and rock the underworld.) And when they figured out what they did, they kind of went "Aw dang..." and made me cackle with glee as they had just seeded the second part of the adventure.
That was one thing I really liked about the Last Exile series... the lead characters started off small in a world they couldn't really comprehend and then had to live with and deal with the consequences of their choices throughout the series. What seemed like a "We should do this" early in the series became a "Oh ****, we're responsible for doing that..." before the end.
Alternately, it's like a parent/child relationship: the PCs as children start off by doing what the bigger, older world says. But once the PCs have grown up a bit, the bigger older world tends to take their advice on what coffee to try at the local coffee shop and what kind of upgrades to put in their computer. (Okay, so that analogy went pretty much all wrong... but it kind of works for D20 Modern?)
Celebrim
Legend
I think your examples are very bad, and that the examples make me think that we aren't talking about the same things. Hense, I could give an answer, but it would be meaningless to you.
Specifically, what's wrong with your example is that Han has more screen time in 'Empire' than in 'A New Hope'. So how can the story be less about him and more about Luke? The only difference is that by Empire, Luke was beginning to realize that he had always been central to the story - whereas in 'A New Hope' he didn't know that he was.
But moving on, there are several questions here, and the fact that you (and persumably Monte) are confusing the various questions make it hard to answer.
1) Are the PC's central to their own story?
This is actually a far more important question than the question of whether the PC's are central to the story of the world. The PC's can be at the center of the campaign (that is to say 'the game'), even if the story of the campaign is only a small thread in the story of the world. The real question is how much are the PC's actors in the story, and how much are they merely observers who are along for the ride. Is the story about the PC's, or is the story about some NPC's that the PC's know. Leaving aside the question of which goes on in anyone's campaign, I've seen published modules that are examples of both cases. For example, some Call of Cthullu modules seemed more concerned with reproducing an HPL short story than actually giving the PC's anything to do. The PC's merely were observers to the strange events going on around them. To me, that was completely silly. On the otherhand, if done well, then having a narrative in which the PC's are slipping in and out of can be really cool provided that the PC's actually have something to do and that enough temporal paths (rooms) exist in the story (dungeon) to provide a sense of non-linearity.
2) Can the PC's choose thier own story?
This is one of the touchier issues in role playing. Many players just hate being railroaded. They don't want to fill that all thier choices have already been made for them by the DM. Most DM's are sympathetic to that, but preparing a quality adventure is alot of work and full freedom on the part of the players makes for alot of DM headaches. Generally speaking, cooperating with the DM and doing the story he wants you to do is more satisfying to most players than merely going about randomly killing things - at least by sometime in high school. So there is this dynamic tension where the DM tries to give the players enough slack to go off in direction that he doesn't expect, while at the same time keeping the story on track. The players on the other hand have to cooperate enough that RP actually occurs, while still being something other than a mere prop in the DM's story. Things can go off the rails at either end.
It's taken me a long time to realize this as a DM, but it is a necessary precondition of role playing that the player characters be the sort of characters that are willing to take risks and get into trouble. I use to beat my head against the wall trying to make my hooks compelling enough that they would compell characters with basically no reason to go out and risk thier lives to actually go out and risk thier lives. I've come to see that this isn't really my problem but a failure on the part of the PC's to actually play a character that participates in adventures. I now make it a condition of introducing a PC that the PC has some sufficient motivation for wanting to do dangerous stuff.
Incidently, I've been guilty of this myself. I can think of one published adventure I just blew because I played it like it was 'Tomb of Horrors' and I was so concerned about not dying that I could not be hooked into participating. Partly that is the fault of the published adventure for not giving enough clues as to what the rational approach was, but partly that's because I was busy trying to save my own bacon rather than being a hero. Fact of the matter is that if you as a PC have consented to play the part of a hero just by setting down to the table, and so you might as well get on with it.
3) Is the PC's story central to the world's story?
If the PC's are 1st level, then unless one of them is Rand Al'Thor or some equivalent character, the answer probably should be no. And even if the character is Rand Al'Thor, then the player of that 1st level character probably shouldn't yet realize that his story is central to the world's story.
On the other hand, if the PC's are 20th level, if they are not yet central to the world's story, then IMO something is seriously wrong with your campaign. Persumably, the sort of challenges that are actually challenges to 20th level characters don't exist over the hill from every hamlet in the realms, else how in the world would the poor commoners survive? Dire rats in the cellar of the hovel are within the bounds of believability, but if thier are nests of elder wyrms in the basement - why is thier still a village much less a hovel? Instead, 20+ CR challenges are persumably rare things that threaten the safety of the world or at least very large parts of it, and its only by having 20th level characters going and facing those challenges that the campaign world doesn't turn into something more like the Midnight setting (or worse).
By 20th level, the characters aren't just local heroes, they are super-heroes and like any super-hero it is thier job to save the world (or at least a large portion of it). Any thing less would be a waste of thier talents.
Specifically, what's wrong with your example is that Han has more screen time in 'Empire' than in 'A New Hope'. So how can the story be less about him and more about Luke? The only difference is that by Empire, Luke was beginning to realize that he had always been central to the story - whereas in 'A New Hope' he didn't know that he was.
But moving on, there are several questions here, and the fact that you (and persumably Monte) are confusing the various questions make it hard to answer.
1) Are the PC's central to their own story?
This is actually a far more important question than the question of whether the PC's are central to the story of the world. The PC's can be at the center of the campaign (that is to say 'the game'), even if the story of the campaign is only a small thread in the story of the world. The real question is how much are the PC's actors in the story, and how much are they merely observers who are along for the ride. Is the story about the PC's, or is the story about some NPC's that the PC's know. Leaving aside the question of which goes on in anyone's campaign, I've seen published modules that are examples of both cases. For example, some Call of Cthullu modules seemed more concerned with reproducing an HPL short story than actually giving the PC's anything to do. The PC's merely were observers to the strange events going on around them. To me, that was completely silly. On the otherhand, if done well, then having a narrative in which the PC's are slipping in and out of can be really cool provided that the PC's actually have something to do and that enough temporal paths (rooms) exist in the story (dungeon) to provide a sense of non-linearity.
2) Can the PC's choose thier own story?
This is one of the touchier issues in role playing. Many players just hate being railroaded. They don't want to fill that all thier choices have already been made for them by the DM. Most DM's are sympathetic to that, but preparing a quality adventure is alot of work and full freedom on the part of the players makes for alot of DM headaches. Generally speaking, cooperating with the DM and doing the story he wants you to do is more satisfying to most players than merely going about randomly killing things - at least by sometime in high school. So there is this dynamic tension where the DM tries to give the players enough slack to go off in direction that he doesn't expect, while at the same time keeping the story on track. The players on the other hand have to cooperate enough that RP actually occurs, while still being something other than a mere prop in the DM's story. Things can go off the rails at either end.
It's taken me a long time to realize this as a DM, but it is a necessary precondition of role playing that the player characters be the sort of characters that are willing to take risks and get into trouble. I use to beat my head against the wall trying to make my hooks compelling enough that they would compell characters with basically no reason to go out and risk thier lives to actually go out and risk thier lives. I've come to see that this isn't really my problem but a failure on the part of the PC's to actually play a character that participates in adventures. I now make it a condition of introducing a PC that the PC has some sufficient motivation for wanting to do dangerous stuff.
Incidently, I've been guilty of this myself. I can think of one published adventure I just blew because I played it like it was 'Tomb of Horrors' and I was so concerned about not dying that I could not be hooked into participating. Partly that is the fault of the published adventure for not giving enough clues as to what the rational approach was, but partly that's because I was busy trying to save my own bacon rather than being a hero. Fact of the matter is that if you as a PC have consented to play the part of a hero just by setting down to the table, and so you might as well get on with it.
3) Is the PC's story central to the world's story?
If the PC's are 1st level, then unless one of them is Rand Al'Thor or some equivalent character, the answer probably should be no. And even if the character is Rand Al'Thor, then the player of that 1st level character probably shouldn't yet realize that his story is central to the world's story.
On the other hand, if the PC's are 20th level, if they are not yet central to the world's story, then IMO something is seriously wrong with your campaign. Persumably, the sort of challenges that are actually challenges to 20th level characters don't exist over the hill from every hamlet in the realms, else how in the world would the poor commoners survive? Dire rats in the cellar of the hovel are within the bounds of believability, but if thier are nests of elder wyrms in the basement - why is thier still a village much less a hovel? Instead, 20+ CR challenges are persumably rare things that threaten the safety of the world or at least very large parts of it, and its only by having 20th level characters going and facing those challenges that the campaign world doesn't turn into something more like the Midnight setting (or worse).
By 20th level, the characters aren't just local heroes, they are super-heroes and like any super-hero it is thier job to save the world (or at least a large portion of it). Any thing less would be a waste of thier talents.
Romnipotent
First Post
Im so inbetween all those votes its boggling.
There are different lines of history, that may or may not change due to a parties actions.
PC's cause events, change the world, or sometimes get caught up in them too.
There are different lines of history, that may or may not change due to a parties actions.
PC's cause events, change the world, or sometimes get caught up in them too.
I voted "important but secondary to events". 2 points though:
1. The PCs are _always_ the central focus of the gaming session. The game revolves around the PCs, even if the world doesn't.
2. PCs become more central to the setting/world as they rise in power. Successful PCs acquire positions of power & influence in the world - High King, Imperial Magist, Deity, etc. Few PCs begin play as son of the Emperor's deputy (Luke) although long-lived PCs may turn out to have interesting backstories - ie IMC, just as in Star Wars, the 1st level farmboy PC doesn't begin play with "son of the Emperor's deputy" on his PC sheet, but it's not impossible that this could later turn out to be the case...
1. The PCs are _always_ the central focus of the gaming session. The game revolves around the PCs, even if the world doesn't.
2. PCs become more central to the setting/world as they rise in power. Successful PCs acquire positions of power & influence in the world - High King, Imperial Magist, Deity, etc. Few PCs begin play as son of the Emperor's deputy (Luke) although long-lived PCs may turn out to have interesting backstories - ie IMC, just as in Star Wars, the 1st level farmboy PC doesn't begin play with "son of the Emperor's deputy" on his PC sheet, but it's not impossible that this could later turn out to be the case...
The Shaman
First Post
I'll go with this answer as well.S'mon said:
Stormborn
Explorer
Thanks everyone for voting so far on my first poll here.
There seems to be some confusion about the questions. Its a given that the PCs are central to their own story. If its not a given in games you have played then you should talk to your DM, you have a problem (possibly, I suppose a really good DM could make it work.)
My question is more about the the campaign world and the PCs place in it.
Again, not going to debate the merits of the examples (see first post) but if it helps think about it this way:
Superman (and the big 7 of the JLA) are central to the DC Universe, what happens to them happens to the world. They are not only central to their own story, they are central to the story of the universe.
The Teen Titans on the other hand, who may save the world now and then and certainly the city, are largley a younger generation of heroes learning to deal with a world that is dominated by the JLA. Their story isn't the world's story, but they are important players in it.
The second tier JLA reservists, Firestorm for example, are there to lend a hand when needed in the group books and are central in their own books, but the fate of the DC Universe, and rarely even a given city, doesn't hinge on him being there.
Again thanks for posting and responding all.
There seems to be some confusion about the questions. Its a given that the PCs are central to their own story. If its not a given in games you have played then you should talk to your DM, you have a problem (possibly, I suppose a really good DM could make it work.)
My question is more about the the campaign world and the PCs place in it.
Again, not going to debate the merits of the examples (see first post) but if it helps think about it this way:
Superman (and the big 7 of the JLA) are central to the DC Universe, what happens to them happens to the world. They are not only central to their own story, they are central to the story of the universe.
The Teen Titans on the other hand, who may save the world now and then and certainly the city, are largley a younger generation of heroes learning to deal with a world that is dominated by the JLA. Their story isn't the world's story, but they are important players in it.
The second tier JLA reservists, Firestorm for example, are there to lend a hand when needed in the group books and are central in their own books, but the fate of the DC Universe, and rarely even a given city, doesn't hinge on him being there.
Again thanks for posting and responding all.
Similar Threads
