I would play in the vampire mouse's suggested campaign, but I would significantly prefer the penguin herder's option.Nifft said:I would so much rather play a campaign with the opposite premise... "You are going to die. Nothing you can do about it. BUT... if you succeed in this epic quest, you can die as a Big Damn Hero, and save the world."
Cheers, -- N
Nifft said:I would so much rather play a campaign with the opposite premise... "You are going to die. Nothing you can do about it. BUT... if you succeed in this epic quest, you can die as a Big Damn Hero, and save the world."
theredrobedwizard said:We ran a game like that a few years back. It started off well enough, but after a few months it started to wear thin. Our heroes became disenfranchised and started to devolve into an "ends justifying the means" group. They'd make the giant strides towards goodness and happiness, but they'd do it the most direct way possible. There's an evil cult in the town that needs to be stopped before they finish a ritual to awaken the Dark Lord Fluffy? Well, let's just kill everyone and raze the town. We win!
Black_Swan said:I would play it but make sure that all the players are in the same mindset. I just played a game like this and it bombed because people came at it from different angles.
2 people wanted to make the world better. 1 Person wanted to make the world evil or atleast make a big part of it heavily evil. Another peson embraced true chaos and wanted to make the world one giant chaotic ball of whatever. Some of the players just didn't care and just showed up to play.
Here's how I'd do it:Mouseferatu said:See, I like that idea too, but...
It seems (at least upon first consideration) to require a lot more in the way of overt rail-roading. It's easy for the DM to end the world. It's harder for the DM to guarantee the deaths of the PCs (without being really heavy-handed about it).