The Luke Skywalker Paradox

[Ktulu]

Hmm... Maybe I'm alone on this, then. I try to do a strong mix of plot and character development, but have been struggling with this campaign.

I guess my question should be, then. When you end up in this situation, what would you do? Obviously, staying out of the situation is a great idea.


So, when you've maneuvered the story around enough to accomodate player interests and changes, and given the indication of high importance to an event (in this case, the war); which is the better solution?

1. Continue on with the likely ending of the campaign (it's a lower magic world, so epic tier and demon fighting is really, really unlikely)

2. Slow the game down with some side issue (chase a macguffin, or something like it).

3. Continue on, ending the war, but add another bigger badder issue that happens afterward (I don't particularly like this idea because if the plot from day 1 has been an impending war, saying, "nope that's not the real danger, THAT is.." seems to be a bit of a cop out).

4. Something completely different?

 

[billd91]

I understand that the players are focusing on the war and want to get it DONE. But how fast is the war actually developing? It takes time for armies to get around, supplies to be gathered or foraged, soldiers to be trained and equipped. Maybe you need to get them to feel the war unfolding at a slower pace, rolling inexorably, perhaps, but not rushing to conquer.

Put up distractions - other smaller armed groups looking to capitalize on the disruption caused by the main war. Bandits, orc raiding, a necromancer using the battlefield dead who might ally with the yuan-ti, pestilence and famine pursuing the war's refugees, frustrated veterans rioting against the leaders poorly running the war. Lots of ideas.

Alternatively, focus on the aftermath. Perhaps by breaking up the invading yuan-ti, they reveal an even more powerful and important foe - one that can keep the campaign going closer to the planned 19th level.

 

[Rechan]

which is the better solution?

THis answer isn't going to satisfy you, but:

That's going to depend from person to person.

It's also going to depend on what your players think and feel. And what they want.

However, to give you the answer you WANT:

Option 2. Pbartender's point stands, as does Mentat55's second point. What I would do?

Have a setup where the players need to get from point A to point B, in order to engage in a crucial battle. Maybe it's a surprise attack, or defending an important supply line, etc. They are traveling to B and - CRASH. For whatever reason, they are stranded, and have to go on foot through dangerous and thick terrain.

In the background you have the tension of "We gotta get there!" But, you also can toss in a side-trek, or some other circumstance. Perhaps this was engineered by the Snakes; they want to personally hunt the PCs in this area the PCs are now in. Perhaps they have to hole up in a safe location while (volcano erupts/heavy tide sweeps in/flesh eating locusts hatch). You have the tension, you have an opportunity for character development (everyone trapped in the bunker), and you can toss some sort of plot at them given their location.

 

[Leatherhead]

In the end, he sacrifices character growth for story advancement and leaves to fight Vader.

I don't understand the paradox here. Is it that giving up this "character growth" was the actual character growth?

 

[Ktulu]

I'm just using it as a loose analogy. Obviously it does in the end (the story was already written). Imagine if, in a game you're running, the PC forgoes the training to become a knight to head off and fight the badguy, despite the warning that he's not ready. He hasn't advanced in level to deal with it, so you have to make changes to the over-all story to handle such a situation, i.e. He fights vader, but vader turns out to be his dad and only cuts off his hand.

It did eventually work out, and that's why I posted; I'm looking for ways around those situations.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I would end the campaign, and let the players decide whether the party retires or continues on.

 

[Pbartender]

4. Something completely different?

Don't slow the game down with a McGuffin. Slow it down naturally... Background events shouldn't wait for the PCs, but neither should they hurry for them.

In the context of a war, remember that most war involves "hurrying up and waiting".

The enemy army approaches, and the PCs have prepared the city for a long siege, but that enemy army is at best still several days away... What do our heroes do in the meantime? The enemy army has arrived and has encircled the city, but it could be weeks before the walls are breached... What do the heroes do in the meantime? After the death of their General at the hands of the PCs, the enemy army is in disarray, and it could take weeks or months for things to sort themselves out until a new General emerges to take charge... What do the heroes do in the meantime? And so on.

That's all time you can gloss over, or it can be put to use by the PCs in away way they can imagine and you will allow.

Consider that years passed between each of the Star Wars movies.

 

[Endur]

In role-playing, six seconds of fantasy time can take over an hour of player time (one round of high level combat can take over an hour of player time).

Or, weeks or years of fantasy time can be covered in one sentence ("Years passed before the next notable event occurred.")

Don't worry, Be Happy.

There are lots of ways for Luke to overcome evil.

 

[Derren]

A war takes time. Some things can't be rushed. Bad weather, gathering supplies, waiting for reinforcements, negotiations with allies, or just formulating a plan. All that can take days or weeks and nothing the PC can do (short of a sub plot) can accelerate it.

Also I second using Babylon 5 for inspiration.

 

[smetzger]

I see this as a major issue in how to run games. How does one offer up side-treks and sub-plots without making it feel like the story has come to a grinding halt. Obviously the war doesn't stop for them, and the players want to continue on. However, some level advancement and character growth would be a nice touch as well.

Thus I see a paradox in running a game. How do you guys get around this? Some players in the group have expressed the feeling that if the game is to end, let's end it. Others would like to continue on with their characters. The plot could be expanded, but I don't want to do it in such a way that would sacrifice the feel of the game, i.e. with the war beginning, they feel like they need to move extremely fast to react, and I don't want to then make everything feel falsly rushed...

It depends on the campaign.

1) If you have a focused campaign like yours or RHoD or RttToEE then realy aren't necessary and can get in the way of the enjoyment. A side plot will need to directly relate to the main plot (maybe someone needs a certain magic-item) or it will need to be a smokescreen that the bad guys have devised to delay and harass the PCs. Luke's trip to dagobah was related to the story. He needed Jedi training to fight Vader, so it tied back in to the main plot. If instead Han decided to take one more smuggling job, well that wouldn't have made much sense or contributed to the overall plot would it?

2) If you have a less focused campaign like an adventure path or your following the interests and enemies of the individual PCs, then there really isn't a sidetrek its just a different focus.

IMO if I am DMing or playing a focused game and there is an obvious sidetrek I find it annoying I want to get on with the main action. I also don't like the 'filler' Star Trek episode's where there is a problem with the holodek.