Hey folks, so I have been running a campaign for ~30 sessions now but I'm ending the game temporarily to recharge on the 30th. I need some advice for providing a good ending for my players. The setup is thus:
The heir to a kingdom is planning on launching her country into war against the orcs as soon as she inherits the throne. She is a just and noble leader, and would be a great hero if not for the genocide thing. The other heir is a cunning and powerful wizard who believes in keeping the peace, and is willing to assassinate her sister to ensure the throne. The players are now faced with the choice, who to support?
Currently I believe the players are planning on just trying to "reason with" the two heirs to get them on the same team. I think this is a dumb plan and will not work. Sitting down with world leaders rarely results in kumbaya.
But at the end of the day, this is a game and should be enjoyable for the participants. I'm considering cheating and having the campaign villain show up and present an existential threat, but at the same time, Ive set this campaign up to force a difficult choice about my player's values. Any thoughts or suggestions?
If the wizard says to them, "Great! I'll meet with her! It's the perfect opportunity to assassinate her!" that should put a damper on the PCs' enthusiasm to get them into the same room....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Can we have some clarity? You mentioned "ending the game temporarily to recharge on the 30th." The thread title suggests ending the campaign entirely, but the context seems to be that you are looking for feedback on how to stop the campaign temporarily (cliffhanger?) while everyone takes a break for a while, and it gets picked back up in the future? I would exercise caution with this mentality "Currently I believe the players are planning on just trying to "reason with" the two heirs to get them on the same team. I think this is a dumb plan and will not work." You are, after all, the DM and absolutely can make the determination that the two heirs' personalities and background are not conducive to peace settlements between themselves, but letting the characters try and to provide creative unique solutions could be a pleasant surprise for you especially if you add more complications into the soup as discussed below.
What is some additional background? Who is the current Queen/King/Ruler and whom does she/he/they support, and is there an imminent reason to expect the crown will soon pass to an heir? (Such as, very old age or curse/sickness?). What about other courtiers, important kingdom merchants, the priest/religious class, foreign ambassadors, human vs. Non-human, minority/majority species in the kingdom... even the commoner/tradesmen/farmers are all likely to have different preferences for very particular reasons. Welcome to politics. Coalition building. What's the risk of an outright revolt or civil disobedience or economic unrest, if one heir succeeds over the other. Is the "cost" of the non warmonger wizard worth the price of the outlying parts of the kingdom open in open rebellion and taking it upon themselves to wipe out Orcs?
It seems to me that there is a LOT of potential for a campaign ending (pausing?) session where the players get to spend a lot of time discovering all the underlying social/political issues of this kingdom, and discover that whichever option is ultimately done (one heir over the other, or trying to force some sort of ruling Duo compromise) will have benefits as well as consequences.
I think adding more complications into the political soup will achieve what I think you are hoping to see: players having to make tough choices by giving them the means to discover the benefits/consequences of their decisions.
If you want them to choose put them in a situation where a choice is almost the only outcome, two cages over lava they can only save one. leaving to much room for middle ground isn't going to balance the game its going to grey it out. this isn't a video game with options for 100,000 players this is your narrative for your group. make them make a choice that carries a huge consequence that their isn't a right answer for.
the only thing i would add is maybe (and this is only if you think the group would embrace this) have a third option where both can be saved but one of the players has to sacrifice themselves in their place, and not just death save dead, like dead dead!
build the tenson get them to a point where the characters are having to really debate about who the let die, present the third option saying that the chracter that volounteers risks permenant erasure and then end the session on a cliff hanger :D:D:D:D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey folks, so I have been running a campaign for ~30 sessions now but I'm ending the game temporarily to recharge on the 30th. I need some advice for providing a good ending for my players. The setup is thus:
The heir to a kingdom is planning on launching her country into war against the orcs as soon as she inherits the throne. She is a just and noble leader, and would be a great hero if not for the genocide thing. The other heir is a cunning and powerful wizard who believes in keeping the peace, and is willing to assassinate her sister to ensure the throne. The players are now faced with the choice, who to support?
Currently I believe the players are planning on just trying to "reason with" the two heirs to get them on the same team. I think this is a dumb plan and will not work. Sitting down with world leaders rarely results in kumbaya.
But at the end of the day, this is a game and should be enjoyable for the participants. I'm considering cheating and having the campaign villain show up and present an existential threat, but at the same time, Ive set this campaign up to force a difficult choice about my player's values. Any thoughts or suggestions?
If the wizard says to them, "Great! I'll meet with her! It's the perfect opportunity to assassinate her!" that should put a damper on the PCs' enthusiasm to get them into the same room....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Can we have some clarity? You mentioned "ending the game temporarily to recharge on the 30th." The thread title suggests ending the campaign entirely, but the context seems to be that you are looking for feedback on how to stop the campaign temporarily (cliffhanger?) while everyone takes a break for a while, and it gets picked back up in the future? I would exercise caution with this mentality "Currently I believe the players are planning on just trying to "reason with" the two heirs to get them on the same team. I think this is a dumb plan and will not work." You are, after all, the DM and absolutely can make the determination that the two heirs' personalities and background are not conducive to peace settlements between themselves, but letting the characters try and to provide creative unique solutions could be a pleasant surprise for you especially if you add more complications into the soup as discussed below.
What is some additional background? Who is the current Queen/King/Ruler and whom does she/he/they support, and is there an imminent reason to expect the crown will soon pass to an heir? (Such as, very old age or curse/sickness?). What about other courtiers, important kingdom merchants, the priest/religious class, foreign ambassadors, human vs. Non-human, minority/majority species in the kingdom... even the commoner/tradesmen/farmers are all likely to have different preferences for very particular reasons. Welcome to politics. Coalition building. What's the risk of an outright revolt or civil disobedience or economic unrest, if one heir succeeds over the other. Is the "cost" of the non warmonger wizard worth the price of the outlying parts of the kingdom open in open rebellion and taking it upon themselves to wipe out Orcs?
It seems to me that there is a LOT of potential for a campaign ending (pausing?) session where the players get to spend a lot of time discovering all the underlying social/political issues of this kingdom, and discover that whichever option is ultimately done (one heir over the other, or trying to force some sort of ruling Duo compromise) will have benefits as well as consequences.
I think adding more complications into the political soup will achieve what I think you are hoping to see: players having to make tough choices by giving them the means to discover the benefits/consequences of their decisions.
Boldly go
If you want them to choose put them in a situation where a choice is almost the only outcome, two cages over lava they can only save one. leaving to much room for middle ground isn't going to balance the game its going to grey it out. this isn't a video game with options for 100,000 players this is your narrative for your group. make them make a choice that carries a huge consequence that their isn't a right answer for.
the only thing i would add is maybe (and this is only if you think the group would embrace this) have a third option where both can be saved but one of the players has to sacrifice themselves in their place, and not just death save dead, like dead dead!
build the tenson get them to a point where the characters are having to really debate about who the let die, present the third option saying that the chracter that volounteers risks permenant erasure and then end the session on a cliff hanger :D:D:D:D