PCs changing the campaign world

[Numion]

"They killed Drizzt!"

"You Bastards!"

Some of the players in my group thought it was really funny to kill Drizzt in Baldurs Gate (comp game). Well, it kinda was. You needed Drizzt to get stuck on the wrong side of a stream, and he would just bounce around while your group emptied hundreds of arrows and slingstones at him. Took a while too ..

 

[Geoff Watson]

Not surprising, considering Drizzts stats in the FRCS. He was like anti-munched out, really inefficient character for a 16th level one.

Not that he'd really make an appearance in my game, or even if he did the PCs would probably take him out.

Well, dual-weilding scimitars, and drow in general, aren't as powerful as in first or second edition.

Geoff.

 

[hong]

--
i honestly can't imagine ending a d&d game and starting a new one right away

Heretic.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I've run FR campaigns for years and the players have messed stuff up but good several times.

1. When looking at wiping out an organization, the trick is, as the GM, do you want it wiped out. If not, think about how having it gone effects the rest of the setting. For example, you mention one guild has 47 people in it. Those 47 probably have family and friends who might rise to the occassion to 'avenge' or honor those who've been killed.

2. When looking at the campaign world, well, it's your world now. The second you decide to GM it, you can wipe countries off the face of the map and add new ones in. I've run games where Greyhawk and FR had massiving trading via Spelljamming and the level of magic was about twice the standard.

3. When looking at Cannon, it's your cannon now. The only thing to remember is to keep account of those changes if you're going to continue purchasing books in the series. I say this because despite the best intentions of the authors, the campaign history will be damaged by them as almost all setting suffer some "Crisis of Infinite Earths", "Zero Hour" flux where things change. Sometimes, like I believe in the case of the Scarred Lands, it's just sloppy editing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Drizzt- and Elminster-hatred aside (and man, must your DMs have been using these NPCs badly to warrant such ire; for heaven's sake, El is supposed to be the setting narrator!), setting change is what it's all about IMHO. While I agree with Moogle that it's important to maintain the continuity of the setting, IMHO that's just to make the PCs' accomplishments all the more important. PCs who want to destroy the Zhentarim should be able to deal major blows against the organization, given time and planning; they just shouldn't be able to pop around and obliterate Klauth, kill Manshoon, wipe out the Church of Cyric, and steal all of Larloch's magic before lunch. One of the nice things about FR is that it enables players to have their PCs effect major achievements and changes to aspects of the setting without causing any single campaign to utterly destabilize the setting. I've run several games in the Realms, and each leaves its own unique mark. However, the setting's still around for people to know and love.

So, in short, dreaded_beast, if your PCs can kill off all the beasties in Tilverton's sewers, let 'em. If they can gather the resources and magic required to storm Darkhold (and plan well enough that they can survive the massive wave of retribution that surely will follow), let 'em. If they can carve their way through Larloch and his spellweb of liches: Well, they're probably 40th+ level by then, so I can't really give advice on that. But the point is that FR is built to be a "big" campaign world (unlike Eberron, which is highly focused on the individual game at hand) specifically to endure such shocks and give the players the extra richness of transforming the setting that their characters, and others, will hopefully travel and experience for years to come.

(This, incidentally, is why I have a serious problem with the FR novels; it tends to cheapen the PCs' own actions vis-a-vis the setting to have a bunch of author-invented characters and spontaneous earth-shattering events transform the campaign world offstage.)

 

[kigmatzomat]

Since the consensus seems to be its a Good Thing to allow change to a campaign, here's a question. What is everyone's oppinion about the changes made in one campaign spilling over into future campaigns? If the PCs change the face of Faerun in some small or large way, then you decide to start up another game in Faerun, will all of those changes still be in place?

That's a big 'ol "It Depends." Sometimes you want to continue in your customized campaign world and others you want to "reset the clock" and go back to the canon.

I was in an SR campaign for a while and when Eric stopped running and Bo took over he migrated our old characters into NPCs and backdrop. Added to continuity but it could've screwed things up if Eric had planned to fire up the old party when he got his muse back.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I might as well answer my own question.

I also say it depends! I run Planescape almost exclusively, and have for a long time. Usually, during these campaigns, secrets of the multiverse are revealed, devils overthrown, Planes shift locations, Big Things in other words. My PS campaigns tend to be fairly epic in scope. When we start a new PS campaign, everything resets. This has to do with several things. For example, if the secret to Mechanus's gears are the same in every campaign, then the PCs won't feel the same thrill of discovery as they did the first time. Not to say that they have found out the secret of Mechanus's gears twice, but they might. Or if there's a hidden Tenth Hell of Baator, well, there won't be in the next one.

I have a homebrew in which I run short limited-scope campaigns occassionally to get away from the sometimes-too-much PS flavor. Everybody needs at least a little variety. In these, PC actions can change things and do change things from one game to the other. Usually the games occur in different places, but their actions have an impact (even if its a small one) on something. When someone else DMed (what is now) our homebrew, our PC party accidently allowed a once insignificant figure to get his hands on a magical item that has made him the ruler of a small city-state. And a very very evil one at that. Oops. But, now its there to stay. Maybe someday some adventurers will come and stop him. Maybe that will be a future PC of mine. Or maybe someone I'm DMing for.

 

[Arnwyn]

How do you handle PCs changing aspects of your campaign world?

I guess I'm wondering how you handle PCs changing "canon" aspects of the campaign world in addition to PC actions causing a large change within an established campaign setting, such as FR.

I just, uh... "do".

If the PCs make any measurable change in the campaign world, I'll make a note of it on a piece of paper, and insert that paper in the appropriate book/page in my FR material for future reference.

Also, while looking at the 3rd Ed. Lords of Darkness book, I noticed that many of the Evil Organizations give a number of members, such as Fire Knives have 47 or something like that. Anyways, do you keep track of this number when PCs kill members of that organization? Once they kill all the members from that organization, is it gone and dead? Of course the DM can always bring it back, but do you keep them "dead" to give the PCs a sense of being able to affect the campaign world?

Yeah, like that. Usually, though, it should be "measurable" - killing one member is not likely (though it may, depending on the dynamics) to have an effect - the organization can recruit another. Killing a whole bunch quickly, or killing a leader, will be cause for an immediate note on my part.

 

[Arnwyn]

Since the consensus seems to be its a Good Thing to allow change to a campaign, here's a question. What is everyone's oppinion about the changes made in one campaign spilling over into future campaigns? If the PCs change the face of Faerun in some small or large way, then you decide to start up another game in Faerun, will all of those changes still be in place?

When we start up a new campaign (always due to a TPK), I let the players make that decision themselves: they may choose to use the same timeline that just passed, or they can decide to "reset" the timeline.

I leave it up to my players.

 

[RFisher]

When I'm DM, PCs are expected to make changes to the campaign world.

Now, trying to completely eliminate an organization of any appreciable size will be tough. There will almost certainly be remnants or allies or take up the torch in some form or fashion. Causing such changes, though, is expected.

Homebrew or published setting does not matter. When I use published settings I treat them exactly the same as homebrews.

And, yes, the world should be ongoing. PCs die, retire, or move on from day-to-day adventuring to other roles. New PCs are created. Eventually old PCs become important NPCs and even legends. I've not really succeeded in doing that to the extent I want to yet, but I've seen other DMs do it. That's what I'm striving for.