Save the world? No thanks.

[Tom Cashel]

No problem.

Seems to me that the ELH (which I have no interest whatsoever in buying) has certainly brought this topic into the forefront...

Personally, my favorite campaigns happen when the PCs are anywhere from 5th-15th level. I know that 3E gives one the opportunity to get "Closer to Uber" than that and still maintain balance and integrity, but it's just not worth it to me. Our group only plays once a month, and we don't have time to run battles with 19th lvl characters that last for three game sessions.

Of course, that's just my preference. The game is, after all, designed so that PCs can "start puny and end up Uber." That's the whole Level system in a nutshell, isn't it?

 

[Morose]

That's my point exactly BButler! Keeping things on a small scale:

"(At least the little portion that I can get my hands on.)"

keeps things more personal and interesting... at least for me. That's all I really meant.

 

[Morose]

Tom- I have the same favored range. Especially the 7th-13th range. After you get enough options as a character to tackle things in a multitude of ways, but before your options get too unwieldy. Played in a campaign for a couple years that ended up with most of us being 19th level and the last few play sessions before we called it were pretty insane. It's just very difficult for a DM to account for some of the bizarre things players can come up with at that level (me being the player in this case). I felt sorry for him when I broke the plot badly by constantly Shapechanging between a Gold Dragon, an Iron Golem, a Wraith and a Delver. Really nothing I couldn't see or anyplace I couldn't go. I'm sure my fondness for a simpler style of play influences my favor for less epic campaign motivations.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

First of all, nothing I say should be mistaken for wisdom.

I know the failings of tone on the 'net, but it was sarcasm. I would not legitimately accuse your post of wisdom.

"You hurt my feelings" or "Stop attacking me" doesn't hold much water with me.

It is not a matter of feelings, but a matter of ethics. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, then don't insult the people you want opinions from.

if you disagree with my statement, then why not post a counter argument?

How is anyone supposed to argue with your feeling that somethings is a cliche? By showing how short sighted your are? Why bother? Unlike you, I don't care how other people run their groups.

Why do you feel that "saving the world" is a necessary element to a campaign?

I have already stated what my current campeign is like. It has nothing to do with saving the world.

Why do you feel the need to sit in judgement of campeigns you are not playing in?

Of course I'll understand completely if you dimiss me since we hold opposite views and you might not deem me worth your time to debate.

I will dismiss you until you are capable of making an arguement worth debating.

I will dismiss you until you treat others the way you want to be treated.

I never stated I hold the opposite view as you.

FD

 

[Morose]

Sit in judgement? Come on man. I posted a thread asking for input and making suggestions. That's what a discussion board is for. If you didn't like my tone, too bad. I've already shown that I'm willing to listen... I took what others have said and gave it legitimate thought. Even stated I was wrong about some of the things I said.

I didn't post this thread with the subject "For Furn_Darkside" nor do I directly attack you anywhere in this thread. Since you "don't care how other people run their groups", why are you even responding? If you want to take my statements (which I've made clear are simply opinion) personally, I can't stop you. If you want to flame me, insult me, deride my posts... fine, it's an open forum.

As for your closing statements, you'll dismiss me regardless of what I do. Don't pretend otherwise. "Dismiss you until you're capable of making an argument worth debating"? How pompous and arrogant is that statement? Who decides whether a topic worthy of debate? By implication, it's you? "Dismiss me until I treat others the way I want to be treated"? Where have I ever stated how I wish to be treated? I check all such wants at the door when I enter a public forum where I fully expect to be treated in the worst way possible. The hypocrisy in your last post is simply stunning.

 

[the Jester]

First of all, Furn_Darkside- I think Morose here is now trying to play nice. Since he's now treating everyone with respect (and has even apologized for calling people lazy et. al.) how about joining the discussion? I find many of your posts to be interesting and insightful so I'm curious as to your opinions here.

About the topic in general: I think it's important to differentiate between saving the world from destruction and saving the world from conquest. If it's conquered, even by mind flayers, demons, a lich, whatever, it isn't really destroyed; the pcs can always bounce back. About five years ago (real time) one segment of my campaign led to the continent the characters were on being overrun by a horrible villain with armies of evil outsiders bound to his will. The pcs, though very powerful (2e days, roughly a 10th-level party at that point) stood essentially NO CHANCE against this guy in a stand-up fight. They had to flee, go on a major quest, and come back 120 years in the future to defeat him. In the meantime he had told his demons and devils to kill everything on the continent that wasn't evil. Elf, bird, tree or flower- kill it.

At the end, when the party finally defeated the villain, Dorhaus (the continent) was a blasted wasteland. Their next quest: trying to _fix_ it, by reseeding it with plants (to do so they had to recover a major artifact).

Anyway, my point is that "saving the world" is often used very loosely. I think you only "save the world" if
1) It's the WHOLE world
and
2) It would actually be destroyed (not conquered, enslaved, etc.) If there's anyone or anything left to come back it ain't destroyed. Case in point: the gith races. Their world was enslaved ("destroyed" in context of some campaigns), but eventually they won their freedom. (Could be a good campaign in there, by the way.)

In this context, I don't think saving the world is all that common. From what I read about Piratecat's campaign it seems like the Defenders of Daybreak did it during the "comet arc" everyone always alludes to, though.

 

[willpax]

To continue on the elaboration of this theme by others:

There is what might be described as "Hollywood style" saving the world, in which all the various threats are reduced to one very powerful individual or organization and the end becomes simple: defeat the villian, save the world. Simple, emotionally straightforward, and can allow the characters to focus on the complexity of means rather than the complexity of ends that makes real life occasionally frustrating. (note for the sensitive: I do not intend any belittlement of this plot through my reduction of it to formula; many classic stories fit the formula, and it does allow for as much or as little complexity of development as you would wish in terms of the nature of the threat, the manner of obstacles that need to be overcome, and so on).

There is also what might be called an "incremental style" of saving the world, as when there are several large forces/population groups/ ethical standards that are engaged in a struggle, with dire consequences should the balance shift too far toward any one faction. Many people describe the "real world" in terms from this formula, but (for a fantasy plot) it does allow for more subtlety in terms of motivation, ethical ambiguity, and the occasional detour (events happen slowly enough that they don’t always have to be struggling against E-vil and so on). Saving the world may be no grander than "making sure the people who like self govenrment aren't overrun by the people who like dictatorships," for example. The beauty of something like this is that the battle is never over for good.

Nevertheless, there are many other plots out there, as Morose has pointed out. I could conceive of excellent campaigns based around some classic stories:

* the players are part of a large army that is trying to invade a grand city with formidable defenses and several allies in order to retrieve the king's kidnapped wife/ establish economic dominance / take all the treasure/ demonstrate that they are strong enough to do it. Skirmishes, supply raids, heated battles, and conflicts among the besieging commanders could all produce material for adventures.

* the players begin far from home, and try to return. For additional fun, have them offend some powerful creature who will then attempt to stop them.

* the players' homes are invaded by savage barbarians who claim that the players live on what is their holy land. A whole series of battles, resistance actions, rallying the peoples, and so on ensue.

I hope this is more in the spirit that morose was hoping to inspire. Sadly, I am equally guilty: my current campaign fits into the "incremental save the world" style, although it is so far-reaching, slow-moving and subtle that the players only dimly suspect what's going on.

 

[Morose]

Those are some excellent ideas willpax. I particularly like the idea of the journey home. I hope you don't mind if I swipe it for the Neverwinter Nights campaign I'm just getting started on.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

First of all, Furn_Darkside...

Err, You are correct. I will just shut my mouth. I apologize to others for being a hijacker.

I find I run two different types of campeigns-
1) I have a story to tell with the players.
2) I have a world with which I want to explore with the players.

When it is #1- I have used a lot of "save the world as you know it" scenarios as one of the final climaxes of the campeign.

The campeign starts local - centering on the characters, their families, dreams, etc.

But, as the characters rise in level, then their importance in the world rises with them. They will find threats (or the threats will find them) and while there will still be a lot of local elements to the adventures- the consequences often will go beyond the characters. This is to represent the growth of their importance to the world.

At the highest levels, the characters are now central players in world. There will be few powerful forces that don't know of the characters- and most of them will consider them in their grand schemes. Since few people gain power for the sake of having power, the schemes of these powerful forces are going to be more likely to be "global" in consequences.

Which makes sense, of course, are high-level groups going to be regularly dealing with goblins infesting yet another wizard tower?

No- they have the power, and the threat needs to be appropriate.

When it comes to the climax, I find it is best to have two- one that is global (save the world as you know it) and one that is local (a final duel with your nemesis, for example)- usually I do a local one for each player that is really into their character. I don't force it on those who just want to hack/slash/explore/whatever.

When it comes to #2- I write out a world and place some minor/major threats. I figure out what they intend to do and how soon they intend to do it. There rarely is a set conclusion to the campeign outside of what feels appropriate (or a tpk, but I can't always be that lucky.. heh).

I put together an introduction adventure to get the players together- and let them go. They are told from the beginning they have total control over their character's lives and where they want to go. All I ask is warning so I have time to prepare wherever they want to go.

As the campeign goes on and the players explore one part of the world, the threats (known and unknown) are not inactive in the other parts of the world.

Ok, to a degree I hold off major events to make sure the characters are involved in some manner, but I want the world to appear it will go on without them. Including other heroes taking care of threats.

Are some of the threats going to need a "save the world" scenario to defeat? Sure. But in our real world there are bad people who want to do large-scale harm or at least a large scale change to their tastes.

In a fantasy world which you have dragons, demons, and wizards.. well... I suspect such bad people are not only more "common", but have easier access to resources.

*Is the "save the world" scenario cliche? That is always in the eye of the beholder.
*Do the characters have motivation? This is a team effort. The dm can not force motivation into a character, the player needs to work with the dm by making a character with clear goals and ambitions.

I have found the best thing to do is just make sure your group is happy with what you are doing. I regularly poll my group on what they have liked so far in a campeign, what they have not liked, and comprehension of events.

Having typed all of this out (I must enjoy hearing myself talk), I think I am going to poll them after a campeign as well. To see how it met their expectations and if there were things they did not like.

FD

 

[Morose]

Awesome post. Thanks for the insights Furn.

Edit: I'm actually going to copy and paste this post into an email for the DM of my current campaign. Thanks again for taking the time to detail your position and ideas for motivations so thoroughly.