Hi fellow DMs, bit of an issue here. I had four main villains for my Feywild campaign, whose goal was to overthrow the king. The PCs are knights who work for the king, and have joined the BBEGs just for fun but won't join in on the killing of their king. What should I do? Should I change some of my encounters? Should the good-hearted king become the BBEG?
If they are doing this just for fun, the King might have some issues with that. Are there other knights who work for the king who might now be charged with finding, arresting or defeating the PCs? I would not make the King the BBEG, as that changes the power-structure in the area.
As of now, the king has no idea this has happened. He thinks his knights are killing the four villains. Maybe he tries communicating with them via a Sending spell or maybe some animal messenger asking them how they are doing, and then I'll see their responses and improvise accordingly?
How do the villains plan to overthrow the king? In what sense are the players plan on going along with this plan? Does this sudden turn make sense in character? Or is this the players deciding to throw the story to the wind?
If they are discovered to be in league with the villains, then the kingdom will cast them as traitors and hunt them down.
It may be important to discuss with your party what they plan on doing, and pivoting the encounters or asking them to turn back to the previously agreed path.
Hi fellow DMs, bit of an issue here. I had four main villains for my Feywild campaign, whose goal was to overthrow the king. The PCs are knights who work for the king, and have joined the BBEGs just for fun but won't join in on the killing of their king. What should I do? Should I change some of my encounters? Should the good-hearted king become the BBEG?
How did they join the bad guys while also refusing to cooperate with their goal? You can't kill the king and also not kill the king. As the players work alongside the villains, this conflict will eventually come to a head and the players will be forced to pick a side for real. I'd go along with it until then-- don't change the villains' motivations for now, don't make any secret of the fact that "haha yes now that you've done X job for us we're one step closer to killing the king!" and let it play out how the players want to play it out. Things will eventually hit the fan, and it sounds like it'll be rife with dramatic roleplay potential when it does.
what if you dropped hints (in a found letter, diary entry, overheard conversation, etc) that the BBEG intended to use magic to charm the adventurers into believing they would have fun joining his side. as the plan appears to be going very well, it would continue to read, the buffoons will soon be convinced to accomplish some quests and eventually take out one of the BBEG's other rivals. slowly they'll be turned to violence and then pointed back at the king.
but did the charm work or was this their own decision? was the charm ever real or simply a red herring? there's absolutely no reason to retcon their actions to say they felt funny after sharing wine with the BBEG or whatnot. this might simply be mundane misdirection (by any of a number of players for any number of reasons (because this is a fey court, after all)). or even planted by the BBEG or king themself (or both!) to say later "look how my rivals seek to twist my actions!" or, hell, perhaps the pilfered note is itself really magical and the more of them the players find the more they become magically suspicious of the BBEG and more susceptible to the charms of another of the king's rivals (this time with dice rolls). that could be fun.
my wife calls this a "punt," because you aren't going to score on the next play and at least this gives you a whole field to run across with plenty of chances for getting the ball back if you can just stall. edit: just to be clear, the above hints/plans/etc are all about stirring the pot, injecting drama, and giving you the dm more time to decide what to do. i do not necessarily condone automatically shooing players back onto comfortable rails; however, i wholeheartedly lean into a chance for "hey, are we the baddies?" what-a-twist moments.
This sentence right here is the core of the problem to my thinking. They aren't your encounters. Look we as GMs across any game you choose to mention aren't telling a story. We aren't dictating the goals. That sounds odd, but it's true. You can and I would argue should consider GMing to be a bit like the person laying out an obstacle course or a maze. Once you've finished building it, you have limited ways of ensuring the rules are abided by but you have no ability to dictate the routes, or the methodology that the players take to overcome the obstacles you've laid in their way. I've said it more times than I care to remember but as GMs we build the world. We lay the board with all the pieces the players can interact with. For the most part we then are 1/6 or 1/8 of the group that is telling the story.
So, I'd be guided by the players on this. They've joined the BBEG, fine...how does the BBEG react to this? Are they going to outright trust these people (probably not)? Are the PCs willing to be ordered around by the BBEG? What does the BBEG still need to accomplish their plans?
It's cool they've gone turncoat but that doesn't mean they're trusted. It's this that I would play on next. I'd be building obstacles that the BBEG directs the players toward to prove their loyalty to the cause. If they fail...well you get a BBEG encounter. If they succeed...well what could the consequences of that action be?
It is for sure incredibly frustrating to have to rebuild the world around the players, which is why I only ever play session to session. I plan from a world map. I know what NPCs are where, what potential cool stuff is where, but planning week to week allows me to move the pieces about sometimes directly in the path of the party, sometimes around and behind them to deliver unforseen consequences. So to return to your party the question is, what do they want to do next? They'll still need to earn their keep unless they've got enough money to retire. And if the party wish to retire, great, you've come to the end of that party's story and the end of the campaign. Time to move on to the next party the next set of adventurers.
I would let it roll and see what the players do and have the NPCs react accordingly. If the party have joined the BBEG he will have some jobs for them to do. Maybe a theft to fund their scheme, maybe extract poison from a dangerous monster. Would word of there actions be likely to get to the king? (for example a witness of the theft describing the party to the head of the city watch who might know the party).
I would warn the players that D&D is not a video game and actions have consequences. If they steal from somewhere they might find there is an arrest warrant for them the next time they try to enter a city.
I agree with Aquilain on this one. How does the world respond to the actions of the characters?
The BBEG seems unlikely to trust these "knights of the king" no matter how much they profess their loyalty. The BBEG might decide they would be better off without them or they might decide that a suicide mission or being sent off to the far ends of the land while the villains succeed in killing the king and begin to subjugate the kingdom would be a better option. Perhaps forcefully. By the time the character return from whatever long task they were sent on, they are vilified by the populace as evil traitors (the BBEG made sure that this information was spread around about them).
Also, consider the resources available to the king. How common is magic in your world? These knights are likley reasonably well known to the king or his council. There are various scrying spells that could be used to keep an eye on them from time to time. How does the king and his councilors react to discovering that the knights are betraying him?
If the characters want to betray the king "for fun" then they should be prepared for the other creatures in the world to respond to those actions. TTRPGs are not computer role playing games where the script is known from the beginning. TTRPGs develop in response to the DM provided information and what the players/characters choose to do with that information.
Should you modify encounters? Yes. However, modify in response to the story.
You have a king. You have four opponents that want to overthrow the king. What makes one side "good" and one side "bad" in this situation? Does the king favor landowners over merchants? Do they have a large army to enforce laws? Do they impose taxes to support the cost of the army? Politics is messy and the victor usually writes the history. Distinct cases of good and bad may be hard to find. Depending on what you have already told the characters and how you think of the world itself .. you could describe things as more gray and less black and white but indicate that the king is popular with most of the people because he limits taxes which it turn makes some of the nobles want to revolt since their revenues have been impacted ... etc. But also, perhaps the lack of taxes has meant the king needed to reduce the size of their standing army making the country weaker and perhaps a ripe target for neighbouring realms that are working to corrupt the nobles to stage a coup that could lead to another realm conquering the kingdom. The "4 villains" could only be the first level of BBEGs depending on how far you want to extend the story.
I just want to say that an unexpected betrayal, say, finding yourself under a geas, or poisoned because you represent a threat, can really put a damper on those things…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If the BBEG are smart, they should know not to trust people who will swap alliances for fun. And if the players aren't willing to carry out the goals of their new masters, then they definitely aren't actually serving them and are just being silly. If they are willing to be evil and attack the good king, then that is one thing, but you can;t join an evil group just for fun and not have to do anything evil. If they refuse to do anything that their new masters command, then they are going to be punished and maybe killed. They should also know that they are running the risk of losing the trust of their current king and if they do they will probably be banished and might be attacked by him too.
I would definitely have the BBEG putting some tests of their loyalty in front of them. Okay, maybe they won't kill the king but will they kill some of his guards? Will they open the gates to the castle? And make the tests increasingly more evil. Will they rob a merchant? Yes? After that, will they burn down a temple? Will they kill an innocent person?
And there should be consequences for this. At first the people they have interacted with previously (in a good way) should be happy to see them again, but that should change. What happens when the news of their change of heart gets around?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi fellow DMs, bit of an issue here. I had four main villains for my Feywild campaign, whose goal was to overthrow the king. The PCs are knights who work for the king, and have joined the BBEGs just for fun but won't join in on the killing of their king. What should I do? Should I change some of my encounters? Should the good-hearted king become the BBEG?
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
If they are doing this just for fun, the King might have some issues with that. Are there other knights who work for the king who might now be charged with finding, arresting or defeating the PCs? I would not make the King the BBEG, as that changes the power-structure in the area.
As of now, the king has no idea this has happened. He thinks his knights are killing the four villains. Maybe he tries communicating with them via a Sending spell or maybe some animal messenger asking them how they are doing, and then I'll see their responses and improvise accordingly?
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
How do the villains plan to overthrow the king? In what sense are the players plan on going along with this plan? Does this sudden turn make sense in character? Or is this the players deciding to throw the story to the wind?
If they are discovered to be in league with the villains, then the kingdom will cast them as traitors and hunt them down.
It may be important to discuss with your party what they plan on doing, and pivoting the encounters or asking them to turn back to the previously agreed path.
How did they join the bad guys while also refusing to cooperate with their goal? You can't kill the king and also not kill the king. As the players work alongside the villains, this conflict will eventually come to a head and the players will be forced to pick a side for real. I'd go along with it until then-- don't change the villains' motivations for now, don't make any secret of the fact that "haha yes now that you've done X job for us we're one step closer to killing the king!" and let it play out how the players want to play it out. Things will eventually hit the fan, and it sounds like it'll be rife with dramatic roleplay potential when it does.
what if you dropped hints (in a found letter, diary entry, overheard conversation, etc) that the BBEG intended to use magic to charm the adventurers into believing they would have fun joining his side. as the plan appears to be going very well, it would continue to read, the buffoons will soon be convinced to accomplish some quests and eventually take out one of the BBEG's other rivals. slowly they'll be turned to violence and then pointed back at the king.
but did the charm work or was this their own decision? was the charm ever real or simply a red herring? there's absolutely no reason to retcon their actions to say they felt funny after sharing wine with the BBEG or whatnot. this might simply be mundane misdirection (by any of a number of players for any number of reasons (because this is a fey court, after all)). or even planted by the BBEG or king themself (or both!) to say later "look how my rivals seek to twist my actions!" or, hell, perhaps the pilfered note is itself really magical and the more of them the players find the more they become magically suspicious of the BBEG and more susceptible to the charms of another of the king's rivals (this time with dice rolls). that could be fun.
my wife calls this a "punt," because you aren't going to score on the next play and at least this gives you a whole field to run across with plenty of chances for getting the ball back if you can just stall. edit: just to be clear, the above hints/plans/etc are all about stirring the pot, injecting drama, and giving you the dm more time to decide what to do. i do not necessarily condone automatically shooing players back onto comfortable rails; however, i wholeheartedly lean into a chance for "hey, are we the baddies?" what-a-twist moments.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This sentence right here is the core of the problem to my thinking. They aren't your encounters. Look we as GMs across any game you choose to mention aren't telling a story. We aren't dictating the goals. That sounds odd, but it's true. You can and I would argue should consider GMing to be a bit like the person laying out an obstacle course or a maze. Once you've finished building it, you have limited ways of ensuring the rules are abided by but you have no ability to dictate the routes, or the methodology that the players take to overcome the obstacles you've laid in their way. I've said it more times than I care to remember but as GMs we build the world. We lay the board with all the pieces the players can interact with. For the most part we then are 1/6 or 1/8 of the group that is telling the story.
So, I'd be guided by the players on this. They've joined the BBEG, fine...how does the BBEG react to this? Are they going to outright trust these people (probably not)? Are the PCs willing to be ordered around by the BBEG? What does the BBEG still need to accomplish their plans?
It's cool they've gone turncoat but that doesn't mean they're trusted. It's this that I would play on next. I'd be building obstacles that the BBEG directs the players toward to prove their loyalty to the cause. If they fail...well you get a BBEG encounter. If they succeed...well what could the consequences of that action be?
It is for sure incredibly frustrating to have to rebuild the world around the players, which is why I only ever play session to session. I plan from a world map. I know what NPCs are where, what potential cool stuff is where, but planning week to week allows me to move the pieces about sometimes directly in the path of the party, sometimes around and behind them to deliver unforseen consequences. So to return to your party the question is, what do they want to do next? They'll still need to earn their keep unless they've got enough money to retire. And if the party wish to retire, great, you've come to the end of that party's story and the end of the campaign. Time to move on to the next party the next set of adventurers.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I would let it roll and see what the players do and have the NPCs react accordingly. If the party have joined the BBEG he will have some jobs for them to do. Maybe a theft to fund their scheme, maybe extract poison from a dangerous monster. Would word of there actions be likely to get to the king? (for example a witness of the theft describing the party to the head of the city watch who might know the party).
I would warn the players that D&D is not a video game and actions have consequences. If they steal from somewhere they might find there is an arrest warrant for them the next time they try to enter a city.
I agree with Aquilain on this one. How does the world respond to the actions of the characters?
The BBEG seems unlikely to trust these "knights of the king" no matter how much they profess their loyalty. The BBEG might decide they would be better off without them or they might decide that a suicide mission or being sent off to the far ends of the land while the villains succeed in killing the king and begin to subjugate the kingdom would be a better option. Perhaps forcefully. By the time the character return from whatever long task they were sent on, they are vilified by the populace as evil traitors (the BBEG made sure that this information was spread around about them).
Also, consider the resources available to the king. How common is magic in your world? These knights are likley reasonably well known to the king or his council. There are various scrying spells that could be used to keep an eye on them from time to time. How does the king and his councilors react to discovering that the knights are betraying him?
If the characters want to betray the king "for fun" then they should be prepared for the other creatures in the world to respond to those actions. TTRPGs are not computer role playing games where the script is known from the beginning. TTRPGs develop in response to the DM provided information and what the players/characters choose to do with that information.
Should you modify encounters? Yes. However, modify in response to the story.
You have a king. You have four opponents that want to overthrow the king. What makes one side "good" and one side "bad" in this situation? Does the king favor landowners over merchants? Do they have a large army to enforce laws? Do they impose taxes to support the cost of the army? Politics is messy and the victor usually writes the history. Distinct cases of good and bad may be hard to find. Depending on what you have already told the characters and how you think of the world itself .. you could describe things as more gray and less black and white but indicate that the king is popular with most of the people because he limits taxes which it turn makes some of the nobles want to revolt since their revenues have been impacted ... etc. But also, perhaps the lack of taxes has meant the king needed to reduce the size of their standing army making the country weaker and perhaps a ripe target for neighbouring realms that are working to corrupt the nobles to stage a coup that could lead to another realm conquering the kingdom. The "4 villains" could only be the first level of BBEGs depending on how far you want to extend the story.
I just want to say that an unexpected betrayal, say, finding yourself under a geas, or poisoned because you represent a threat, can really put a damper on those things…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Why does the BBEG trust these adventurers? Didn't they kill any of the BBEG's minions?
Will the BBEG be keeping a careful eye on the PCs, just in case they double-cross again?
If the BBEG are smart, they should know not to trust people who will swap alliances for fun. And if the players aren't willing to carry out the goals of their new masters, then they definitely aren't actually serving them and are just being silly. If they are willing to be evil and attack the good king, then that is one thing, but you can;t join an evil group just for fun and not have to do anything evil. If they refuse to do anything that their new masters command, then they are going to be punished and maybe killed. They should also know that they are running the risk of losing the trust of their current king and if they do they will probably be banished and might be attacked by him too.
I would definitely have the BBEG putting some tests of their loyalty in front of them. Okay, maybe they won't kill the king but will they kill some of his guards? Will they open the gates to the castle? And make the tests increasingly more evil. Will they rob a merchant? Yes? After that, will they burn down a temple? Will they kill an innocent person?
And there should be consequences for this. At first the people they have interacted with previously (in a good way) should be happy to see them again, but that should change. What happens when the news of their change of heart gets around?