Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6126297" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Well, if we're discussing a player-driven campaign, it seems like that puts the onus on you to assess what you can do now to advance those high altitude long term goals.Sure.  But if no one brings a plot hook to the table, then you aren't going anywhere.  And, from your comments, you aren't going anywhere.  You've said the past few sessions have been going nowhere.  Thorughout this thread, you've been quite clear you don't want "GM breadcrumbs".  So where are your player-initiated activities?  You said:But you didn't say what you were looking for.  Where were those clear GM cues that he was supposed to follow?  He can't just drop bread crumbs in your path, can he?This implies there are five big player goals which are not inter-related.  If we're taking each player's goal in turns, then it seems like we're engaging each player in sequence, not engaging all of the players simultaneously.  If BobPCs goals have all been resolved, does that diminish the enjoyment of running BobPC?   Maybe instead of BobPC's Cult Issue start to finish, it would have been better to have the Cult issues cool down for a while, with a different PC's issues rising and being advanced (but not resolved) before that Cult rears its head again.  But the tunnel vision "nothing can distract from the one goal of immediate focus" approach isn't, to me, consistent with an integration of issues.  The latter is more like an ensemble cast, where most episodes have at least two characters' stories in focus, often running parallel without really crossing over.  The "running in parallel" approach is much tougher in a game, where we want all players involved in the game, but moving between plotlines, story arcs and character focuses allow the story to shift between the players' schticks, not play one out in its entirety with tunnel vision, leaving that character as more of a hanger on for the rest of the campaign.What happens when the character's story is resolved?  I'd suggest it is either time for a new character (if the story is resolved, this one is resolved) or the character needs a new goal - a new story to explore.  However, if that character is intertwined with the rest of the group, then HIS story is told (and now the player is bored with the character), but the telling of OTHER CHARACTERS' stories may still rely on this PC, at least in part.  If half the party has their issues resolved, and half the players are now just along for the ride, how great is that?  But the other players haven't gotten the same resolution for their characters, so if the party retires, then we never get to the aspects they wanted to play out.  How fair is that to them?If we can bring all the characters' stories to resolution in some linked fashion, or at least in rapid succession, that seems like a good campaign ender.  Maybe it doesn't mean the end of the characters - maybe it's the season finale, and we start next season with new goals to achieve, or even introduce/establish.  But we all know those shows where they really should have ended the series a season or two back because the characters are pretty aimless now, and we're just rehashing old plotlines.Maybe this new campaign features some returning characters and some brand new ones, as some players feel their characters are done and resolved, but others find there are still new stories for their characters.Again, I think this is, or can be, an outgrowth of that tunnel vision.  The ground work for sessions 75+ can be laid in earlier sessions, with issues now coming back.  Instead of 50 sessions of tunnel vision focused entirely on a couple of specific goals, or arcs, maybe that means 60 sessions, 10 of which seem kind of ancillary to the main plot and objectives at that time, but which lay some groundwork for Sessions 70 -110, where those issues come into larger focus (or sessions 70 - 120, with another 10 sessions that are laying the groundwork for the next major objectives/plotlines).  I pick those numbers out of the air, obviously, but a mix of "main plotlines" and "sideline" sessions, probably including some "sideline" sessions that stay on the sidelines, whether because they were intended as one offs or because that plotline/objective din't pan out as being as engaging as desired or hoped.  If we just spent 50 sessions playing the Battle against the Cult of Orcus, and that plotline is now played out, retiring the campaign seems pretty logical.  But if we spent 75 sessions, with that extra time opening up new avenues and objectives, perhaps there is still somewhere for the campaign to go after we catch our breath from the final resolution of the Cult.  Returning to issues that were deferred as the Cult activities picked up and became an urgent, top priority seems a lot more natural, and likely, then starting fresh, and looking for new things to do after that climactic resolution when literally everything that went before was a direct link to that one overarching objective.In your own game, it sounds like, maybe, the big plotlines are resolved, but some, if not all, of the players still feel there are stories in their characters.  So what are those stories?  It seems like someone will have to take some initiative to bring those to the forefront, or the campaign will fizzle.  Or maybe it should have ended three sessions ago, when it sounds like all of the elements (remaining?) that were engaging to the players and the GM were resolved.</blockquote>

Verification