Victory *and* death

[coyote6]

I'd be interested in it. At least for a while -- it could get old after a while, I suppose, so pacing would be pretty important. But yeah, as long as there was a good chance that we (the PCs) could stomp the villains' butts before (or as) the world died.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would commit to a fixed time line -- the world ends in X months of real time -- to make it both more urgent and to keep it from being a drag.

And, yeah, I'd want to play in the early days of the new world afterward.

 

[Sandain]

If you could start it soon, you could tie in the death of the world with the ending of 3.5, and start the new campaign in the new 4.0 world/ruleset.

Much like the 2nd Edition Apocalypse Stone adventure foreshadowed Sorcerers and Half-Orcs becoming prevalent.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

gezz that reminds of wolfs rain. Such a sad ending. I have a love hate relationship with how it ended.

However it think i would play in a game like this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would you be interested in a campaign like this?

What's in it for me, as a player?

I'm comfortable with my characters ending up largely boned and living for the "greater good," but that's because it's fun for me to play a sacrificial character. If EVERYONE is playing a sacrificial character, the schtick gets old fast, I'm no longer special. So I'm going to need another payoff.

Do we get to play in this future setting we're making? Do we get to know what happens to the future generations? Can I hone it a bit character-centric, meaning that if I want to form a particular *kind* of future, my actions can influence it (say, I want to make a cabal of thieves in my image, or shape a kingdom using the motifs of my axe-and-sword fighting style)?

Tell me how I can make my mark special, and it might be appealing. But if all I'm doing, as a player, is dragging my character through suffering for no player OR character reward, I'll be reluctant. I'm not into grim-n-gritty.

 

[joshhg]

Much like the 2nd Edition Apocalypse Stone adventure foreshadowed Sorcerers and Half-Orcs becoming prevalent.

Or like Die, Vecna, Die! "forshadowed" the changes in the planes of 3ed?

Spoiler

Yes, I know that that wasn't the real reason, but it does make a good joke/rumor/story

 

[billd91]

I would only play a game like this in the event that the next campaign takes place in the aftermath. I want to see what happens even if it's with new, completely unrelated characters.

I should think that this would be virtually a requirement of playing. If there's no follow-up campaign after the first one, what's the point of playing the first one? The players need to see and experience the rewards of their efforts, I think.

 

[Mark Hope]

I ended a long-running campaign (18 years) in this fashion, with the end foreshadowed over the course of a decade real-time. It worked very well, the players loved it and I had a blast running it. It's very liberating as DM - you can really pull out all the stops as you get closer to zero-hour. We're playing in the follow-up world now, which I have had immense fun designing and building with the input of some of the old players. Stormbringer was indeed a strong influence on my approach, along with the Vedic myths of Brahma and the cyclic cosmos. I don't know you personally, Mouse, but from reading your work I don't think that you'll have trouble getting the players to buy into the idea. Go for it, I say. You won't regret it

 

[Li Shenron]

You're about to start a campaign. It's a story-heavy campaign. (Doesn't mean railroading, just means that it's focused on a particular plot line.) But you know from the beginning that

A) The world is going to end. Nothing you can do to stop it. But...

B) By winning a series of victories for the forces of good (or whatever), you can strongly influence the nature of the new world to follow. You will never reap the benefits, but your actions will determine if the next incarnation of humanity will live in peace and plenty, or in violence, slavery, and want.

Would you be interested in a campaign like this?

Why not?

Everybody knows we're going to die one day, but that doesn't stop us from trying to make our life the best we can... In the game, it could be interesting to see how different players roleplay such a grim prospect.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't probably have any problem even if this is not known beforehand. In any case, you don't usually play forever with the same PCs, one day or the other most campaigns end, and having one end with the end of the universe is not worse than having a campaign end with the PCs become gods, retire from adventuring, or (worse) ending just because of out-of-game reasons.

Actually, I would even like more an opportunity to see some campaign where at the end the characters face a situation where they have to choose between saving the world by dying or saving their lives but dooming the world. I think it could be a nice campaign-end that doesn't happen often.

 

[Gez]

Here's how I'd do it:

1/ The world is going to end. The Lord of Nightmares will unleash his demonic army on the Earth, and blah doom blah blah doom.

2/ The only way to stop him is to defeat him. However... he lives in the Underworld, whence none have returned. Because you have to die to get there.

3/ So, gather the Quest MacGuffins (of Legacy!) and enact the Ritual of Travel... the fate of the world rests on your cold, dead shoulders.

Cheers, -- N

I liked the cheesy way this was done in the good old Doom games. "Demons are invading. They came through that portal. You don't see how to close it from your side, so you hop in and go to hell to close it from the other side." The best, though, was in Doom2, where you go in Hell and destroy Hell when you're right just here in the middle of it.