The Luke Skywalker Paradox

[Ktulu]

Thanks, everyone! The thread has helped free up some of that blockage I'm dealin' with.

Though I am still conflicted on what to do about it, I'm less concerned with the consequences.

One thing I haven't been considering was the over-all incompitency of those in power. The heroes are focusing on winning, but their kings and such have been focused on the politics of who is winning. If I need to slow it down or make changes, the King and his council have, so far, set a standard of complacency and ignorance. There's no reason they need to wait for the heroes to save the day. An ill-fated tactical move can change the course of the game...

 

[Pbartender]

One thing I haven't been considering was the over-all incompitency of those in power. The heroes are focusing on winning, but their kings and such have been focused on the politics of who is winning. If I need to slow it down or make changes, the King and his council have, so far, set a standard of complacency and ignorance. There's no reason they need to wait for the heroes to save the day. An ill-fated tactical move can change the course of the game...

And don't underestimate the ability of someone in power to obstruct the heroes simply for the sake of keeping all the credit and glory for himself... It happened in ancient Rome all the time.

 

[Rechan]

One thing I haven't been considering was the over-all incompitency of those in power. The heroes are focusing on winning, but their kings and such have been focused on the politics of who is winning. If I need to slow it down or make changes, the King and his council have, so far, set a standard of complacency and ignorance. There's no reason they need to wait for the heroes to save the day. An ill-fated tactical move can change the course of the game...

Don't forget typical logistical issues that could seriously cause setbacks.

Armies march on their stomach. A sudden loss in food supply could seriously hamper the war effort. Drought, flooding, famine, anything could cause food to slow down - even the capturing of a vital supply line (like the North did in the Civil War).

In fact, war-time adventures is rife for lots of little side-treks.

 

[Betote]

So, your players want to finish the war. Give that to them, then. If they want to continue the campaign afterwards, you can always have the BBEG escape or be just the minion of another bigger, badder and eviler guy, or they could have to deal with the aftermath, or whatever.

Or just end the campaign and start a new one. There will always be stories to tell, and that's one of the great things about D&D

 

[Tamlyn]

If your players are open to a shift in styles you could let them finish up the combat-centric war campaign only to discover nobles, generals, etc... on "their side" who've been helping the enemy. The focus then shifts to investigation, political plots, and subtler combats but it continues the overall story arc.

 

[Korgoth]

Random ideas for prolonging the war:

1. A snake man sorcerer uses a fell ritual to banish the PCs (heroes of the war, I presume) to the Jurassic Park dimension. They have to find their way back... and upon returning, the war is not going as well as it was.

2. Betrayal! One of the generals or kings on the side of good has been subverted by the evil forces of snakedom. At a key moment, his forces switch sides or otherwise foil the good guys. Or maybe they just surrender or declare neutrality, leaving a key offensive with an exposed flank. The traitor must be brought to justice and perhaps his traitorous forces must be neutralized.

3. The snake dudes can see the writing on the wall: the war is going poorly. However, they have been developing a magical wonderweapon or other fiendish device which they hope will turn the tide. Obviously the PCs are going to have to take this thing out.

4. Those sneaky snakes have managed to capture an important general or king from the good side. A rescue must be mounted. Preferably entailing a glider assault on a mountain snakefortress.

 

[NewJeffCT]

And don't underestimate the ability of someone in power to obstruct the heroes simply for the sake of keeping all the credit and glory for himself... It happened in ancient Rome all the time.

Or, rather than keeping the glory to himself, he can be completely oblivious to certain dangers - think, the mayor of Amity in "Jaws". He was so focused on tourist season and the money, he kept the beach open despite shark warnings. Look where that got him?

 

[fba827]

.. just ride it out and see what your NPCs do as a result of whatever the PCs make happen. Look at your major NPCs and simply ask yourself, what would this person do now that the PCs have done X?

If you can't figure any "interesting" plot hooks out of it, then let the campaign end.

So, basically, if nothing else comes to mind, then let it play out.
Either the end of the campaign happens faster than you expected.
Or some twist naturally emerges.

 

[Errantocracy]

Hmmm . . . as the humans get close to victory, the Yuan-Ti could summon an Ancient Evil Entity - a demon, a primordial, etc - because they have nothing to lose. Said AEE destroys the Yuan-Ti and then goes on to the humans . . . maybe it can only be killed by a special weapon? Maybe it unleashes four archhenchmen who ride on horses around the world, spreading variously themed misfortunes? Or maybe Zehir just comes down to take a personal hand in things.

Or maybe the characters learn that the Yuan-Ti are not as bad as everyone had been making them out to be (still a little bad, mind you), and meanwhile the human war machine is stepping up. PCs must decide wether they can abide what is becoming a genocide, or whether they will side with their former nemesis (this actually works better in a novel, because the PCs will likely still have no qualms about killing all the Yuan-Ti).

Or, has already been suggested, the Yuan-Ti win a major battle. Maybe there are Yuan-Ti adventurers who have been working at cross-purposes to the PCs (an evil five person party) that will prove to be recurring villains.

 

[the Jester]

In my campaign we recently played out a siege that lasted almost six years. We did it by significantly abstracting time over several sessions, and only figuring out how long it all took at the end of the siege- the actual duration of the siege was determined by the number of victory points the pcs had at the end.

I understand your desire for side quests and character development arcs. I also sympathize with the pcs' desire to "hurry up and win". But as others have pointed out, war takes time to develop. I would think that is your best method for pushing side stuff: "the enemy army needs a month or two to prepare to march, then will need two weeks to reach your city" gives you 6-10 weeks of downtime.