Publishing Epic Campaigns - the "Authocthonians" approach

[Jürgen Hubert]

A large number of "epic campaigns" have been published over the years - the original "Dragonlance" modules, the "Enemy Within" campaign, or the "Darkness Revealed" adventure trilogy for Trinity. They all set out to make the player characters part of sweeping changes to the game setting, and deliver in that. And there is of course something satisfying in seeing how your player characters change the world

However, they often cause the appearance of the dreaded "metaplot" - that is to say, that future supplements will incorporate the events of those campaigns into the fabric of the setting. And this is problematic. For one thing, there is no gurantee that the adventures will play out as expected - thus making these future supplements at least partially worthless for the GM. For another, many GMs are resentful if they have to constantly buy new supplements just to keep the setting "up to date". Finally, the players might learn something about events in these adventures merely by reading supplements that take place at a later date in the timeline of the setting.


But there is another way of doing epic campaigns, which has been demonstrated in "Exalted: The Authochtonians". The Exalted RPG intentionally has no metaplot as such (at least partially because the PCs tend to be so powerful that they will shape world events nearly from day one) - the timeline of the setting never advances.

However, the "Authochtonians" nevertheless provides a framework for an epic campaign. It's basic premise is the invasion of the "main world" by an outerdimensional techno-magical civilization, and it provides both detail on this society and its powers, and three different campaign frameworks on how the invasion could play out. And the entire invasion is optional - no other book in the line assumes that the events described in the book take place (though some of them give suggestions on how to incorporate these events if the GM so wishes).

This strikes me at the best way to publish epic campaigns - they allow the GM and players to change the setting drastically without assuming that the campaign has taken place at all for all other supplements. Of course, it has the downside that once these sweeping changes have been made as a result of the campaign, the GM is largely on his own when dealing with the repercussions beyond those mentioned in the campaign book itself.


So I was wondering:

1) Do you like publication of epic campaigns for your favorite campaign setting that introduce large-scale changes to the setting?

2) If so, do you want future publications for the setting incorporate the changes that the campaign has wrought and advance the timeline of the setting?

 

[Graf]

Not to be this guy but...

No and No (and Exalted is special).
If, for some reason, you can't develop an interesting story that works -within- the campaign framework, then an optional book is a better alternative. But that's what Dungeon is for (you want Gythyanki to invade, fine, but don't make it canon).

IMHO The Authocthonians setting itself is basically an optional setting book. "There are these cool Authocthonian guys, they were made by this lost god and live in another dimension." Maybe that dimension is connected to your Exalted game (and that may have been made explicit in 2nd ed) but maybe they don't. The GM picks whatever they like or they run it as a seperate game setting.
Having three cool campaign outlines; one of which was the Gythyanki-style-total-invasion option was very cool. But it's more like suggesting that PS or SJ (back when it was tied to the other settinges like FR, DL, GH, etc.) should have an optional epic adventure hook included to challenge epic characters.

Epic adventures are great.
Any epic campaign in any published setting that is designed to specifically re-order the whole campaign world is a serious turn off.
For starters, they are generally terribly implemented with almost painfully bad fictional events (random character X is now a god, there is no more magic in the world and now the Main Character of random book X must -rediscover magic- and save the world!) and tend to be very destructive (i.e. vast swaths of useful, published game text are destroyed, interesting sub-plots, characters and settings are removed and replaced (or more frequently) not replaced at all).

Every Time FR 'reboots' by wiping out everybody it gets weaker (as characters, not power levels obviously), interesting NPCs are "killed and replaced by this pit fiend see MM pg XX", gods and characters with established backgrounds are often replaced by less detailed characters. You're replacing years of work with a module that was hacked together over a few months by a rushed production team (or driven by novel-of-the-week type fiction writing).
(I should say that FR CS for 3.0 did a good job of trying to reverse this by coming up with new characters, bringing back slain ones, and so forth).
Ditto the DL 4th age stuff. Making "old settings" into "new settings" is not very interesting. If you want a new setting, where things are very different then make a new setting, then make a new setting. Nuking the old setting from orbit to make a new setting is silly.

Having said that, a 'new' campaign setting, that was issued with the promise it would be developed regularly according to a specific mega-plot; -could- be cool/interesting. Though you'd probablyoccupy the same space as an Adventure Path (Shackled City, Age of Worms) type product it could be attractive.

 

[Hussar]

Having said that, a 'new' campaign setting, that was issued with the promise it would be developed regularly according to a specific mega-plot; -could- be cool/interesting. Though you'd probablyoccupy the same space as an Adventure Path (Shackled City, Age of Worms) type product it could be attractive.

IMO, this is perhaps THE best way to introduce settings. The FR model was to produce setting book after setting book to fill in the spaces. The problem with that is that it doesn't really help the DM. The DM still has to go out and make adventures, stat up those other NPC's and whatnot. Only now, he has to do it in the framework of whatever setting you happen to be using.

I would much rather see the return of the Greyhawk model - which Goodman Games seems to be somewhat following. Lots and lots of adventures in which the campaign setting is presented within the context of the modules. Freeport is another great example of this as are the Adventure Paths.

Look at Scarred Lands. A great setting, with tons of potential and a pretty decent metaplot or three. Yet, it dies a few years after being released despite a huge amount of published support. IMO, the biggest thing that killed SL was the lack of modules. Sure, you could have all these great supplements, but, all that really did was add work to the DM. That's fine when I was 16 and could spend far too many hours developing things, but, now, I have the choice. I can go with SL and proceed to spend dozens, if not hundreds of hours developing a campaign, or, I can go with Shackled City, spend a weekend reading the book and a few hours a week doing campaign upkeep and run a campaign for the next year, maybe year and a half.

In my opinion, that's not really a choice at all.

 

[Yair]

I SO depends. I do like to keep epic campaigns NOT in canon. If you publish an epic campaign that significantly changes the world, don't base future releases on the assumption that I've played through it, please.

In most settings, I rather you don't release such a campaign at all. Some settings, however, call for some "resolution". If you were to publish an adventure where Midnight is liberated from the Shadow, or Oathbound's imprisoned god is freed, or so on - well, that makes a weird kind of sense.

I do like epic adventures, and may be interesting in an epic adventure such as that desribed. But I rather think you can tell whole tales without such changes (witness the Adventure Path), and if you do want such stories you may just as well do them in a custom world tailored to the benefit of the story (witness the Drow War).

At any rate I agree that what I'm missing most are adventures*, but it's a sad truth that these just don't sell well enough, or so it seems.

* Well, right now what I'm missing most is time...

 

[Aeric]

I think the best example of the damage metaplot can do to a game is seen in White Wolf's old World of Darkness lines--Vampire, Werewolf, et al. WW painted themselves into a corner and were faced with a tough decision: either deliver on the apocalypse, thus ending the games as we know them, or wuss out and come up with some lame excuse as to why it didn't happen, potentially losing a lot of fans. I think this is why you look at Vampire 2.0, etc., and there is a total lack of metaplot. WW learned its lesson. Personally I find the oWoD far more compelling than any of the new material, but that's neither here nor there.

1) Do you like publication of epic campaigns for your favorite campaign setting that introduce large-scale changes to the setting?

Sure, so long as they take the form of separate books and are never mentioned in the other books, not even as a sidebar. If you run one of these epic campaigns, who better to decide how the end result affects the world but you? Sidebars speculating on how the game ends are a waste of space.

2) If so, do you want future publications for the setting incorporate the changes that the campaign has wrought and advance the timeline of the setting?

Perhaps as a separate section, but not integrated into the books as a whole. Ideally, there would be an annual publication detailling the events of the coming year, and the DM can incorporate what he wants to. Books with crunchy bits and gazeteers detailling specific regions of the world should remain timeless.

 

[delericho]

1) Do you like publication of epic campaigns for your favorite campaign setting that introduce large-scale changes to the setting?

No. It was pretty cool with Vampire for a spell of about 6 months (just after Vampire: Revised was released), then it all went horribly wrong IMO. And the metaplot prior to Vampire: Revised never grabbed me). It totally destroyed Dark Sun (undoing a huge part of what made the setting really cool, and drastically changing the core area of the setting in the very first novel).

These days, I would much rather you just give me the setting and have done. Ideally, plan your setting to be out and complete in a limited number of books, and specify that number before publishing the first book. Then, don't deviate from that number unless you come up with something really cool, or your setting is really popular. (You don't need to tell us what the 'magic number' is. But I would prefer that you know.)

2) If so, do you want future publications for the setting incorporate the changes that the campaign has wrought and advance the timeline of the setting?

But this one's a 'Yes'. If you're determined to have a metaplot, do it properly. Either have events in your campaign that have meaningful consequences, or just provide a static setting at some fixed date in its history. Don't have a metaplot in book A that has no impact on book B, unless the subjects of books A and B are such that there shouldn't be an impact.

 

[Cam Banks]

An interesting factor in this is D&D's tendency to not assume any ending to the campaign. The campaign settings don't assume the game will ever end; it will just keep going on and on, and when the PCs die, you will have new ones.

An epic campaign should assume two things. First, that the heroes are the most important characters. They don't have to be the biggest and baddest in the world, but the spotlight is on them and all real change occurs because of them.

Second, and this is where it gets tricky, the campaign should have a beginning and an ending. Arguably one of the biggest mistakes of developing Dragonlance early on was doing anything else with it after the modules were released. We've come so far now, after 20 years, that DL is now its own world and very open to running multiple campaigns and serving as the setting for many novels, but it wasn't originally planned that way. A true epic campaign shouldn't care about later supplements or the future of the product line or anything like that. It should all be directed at the campaign itself. And it should end, at some point, and that should be that.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[00Machado]

Second, and this is where it gets tricky, the campaign should have a beginning and an ending... A true epic campaign shouldn't care about later supplements or the future of the product line or anything like that. It should all be directed at the campaign itself. And it should end, at some point, and that should be that.

I think the above idea is an under discussed option for both epic and non epic play. I read Sean Reynolds refer to is as short term themed campaigns, which I think is a good way of putting it.

Regarding the epic plots, I think it can be executed in a few ways effectively in a product, to make an appealing product/play experience for those who want it, without derailing the setting for those who don't.

Idea 1 - The Ptolus method. Sets up an epic campaign backdrop, and provides the framework to run it, alongside the framework to run other less world shaking events. Use the setting the way you want. Follows the stand alone model, but inlcudes enough plot hooks and campaign themes that the setting is usable for epic themes and less world shattering themses at the same time.

Idea 2 - The world reorders itself at the end. I can see a couple of scenarios. One is kind of like the time of troubles for FR. I say kind of because I figure it would have been cooler if the resolution (or at least one that the players could reasonably choose), is that the PCs end up as new deities, with those responsibilities, while the world is put to rights by Ao - more or less. The campaign can end if you want. Or, you can have play continue with a sort of epic/divine play experience. Campaign focus is now on plotting and scheming at the deific and planar levels. Players can choose to let others take those roles, and remain in play on the prime material plane. Players can retire those characters as deities, and start a new 2nd generation campaign, with characters centered around worshipping these new deities, etc.

Idea 3 - A stand alone play option, like Incursion. Shake things up, and be comfortable being on your own. Leave the DM with some ideas at the end for how the setting/mechanics might be impacted, and leave it at that.

Idea 4 - The Harn approach. Create a setting with a static timeline. Publish supplements that elaborate on story themes without moving the timeline forward.

Idea 5 - Create a campaign setting with epic plot hooks. Subsequent products assume nothing has happened with them, leaving it up to GMs.