Twice I've tried to make a game where final victory isn't an option. This is over a RPG career of 35+ years, so it's not like I'm wilfully banging my head against a wall or anything. Regardless, and likely unsurprising, it hasn't ended well.
What I was trying to do was play around with a feeling of impending doom. The bug people from beyond the desert are coming, and there's no stopping them, they are beyond numbers - all we can hope for is to stem the tide long enough for most of our civilians to make it to the sea, and into boats. The bugs didn't bring any ships with them. That sort of thing, right? So you, the player character, is certainly going to die (actually, you'll likely reroll many times during the campaign). But some 'victory' condition does exist.
Both times, I warned in advance: This is the premise. Don't get attached to your guy or girl, because I fully intend to be merciless, and the enemies are literally without number. Your tactics should not be to win, but to stall for time.
Both times the game got players, but the games fell apart within a couple of weeks.
So, my question: Is this simply not doable? What could I do different?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Without offense meant, your design seems fundamentally doomed to failure based on the very specific type of player you for this to work. This is not merely finding a player willing to play with a DM v. Player mentality--a playstyle that is increasingly less popular--you need to find a player who is okay with a DM v. Player mentality where the Player is told from the beginning that the DM will eventually be unfair and kill the player, so no real promise of the social compact that makes DM v. Player work (i.e. "I will try to kill you, but I also will not drop a Tiamat on your Level 1 characters, even though I can do that). Not only that, the player is told from the beginning that, in the DM v. Player dynamic, they will lose eventually--and even if they "succeed" in stalling, the DM will always prove victorious.
This hypothetical player must also not be super invested in storytelling--after all, who really wants to participate in a story where the ending is told to you from the start, and, no matter what you do, you know you can only change some of the specifics but not the ultimate outcome.
This player must also not grow bored with the fait accompli story as they play and must not grow tired of constantly asking "is today the day the other shoe drops and we party wipe?" That will wear on a player pretty quickly--even if they thought the idea sounded fun, expectations of enjoyment often are crushed under the weight of actuality. I expect this is why your games fell apart pretty quickly--folks realizing they did not actually like what they signed up for.
Those are a lot of factors which, taken together make for a rather rare player--effectively boiling down to a player who is willing to let the DM run wild over the campaign to tell their story, at the expense of the self-determination which is the fundamental hallmark of D&D.
And, of course, even if you do find a player who both finds the idea exciting and will continue to find the idea exciting for more than a couple weeks.... you still need to find three more such individuals.
I disagree entirely about being unfair. It's totally upfront, part of the 'contract': The odds aren't anything like fair, encounters are not about killing off all the enemies, but (as an example) buying time for civilians to escape. This is a game about doom. Not about averting it, but ... maybe buying hope for others. The various encounters would have clear objectives - and it would ultimately be up to the players if they fought to the bitter end, or escaped alive. Depending on the scenario, one or the other might be more advantageous, overall.
In some encounters I'd provide units of cannon fodder to use strategically, while PC's could move around the battlefield, giving support.
Also - obviously, they didn't know the ending. They knew the threat (bugmen from beyond the desert), and were given objectives for each .. chapter, encounter, whatever. We never reached the point of the civilians and remnats of the army setting sail for the other (rumored) continent.
I also don't agree that the story in any way is boring. Quite the opposite: Since succes is generally always assured, all the normal stories are boring: It's just a question of finding out how to succeed. In this game, they literally didn't know the outcome. Also, I find it's fertile soil for roleplay: How does your character handle this fight. They were welcome to just panic and run too.
But you're right that the games fell apart quickly because the players didn't ... find the enjoyment they expected. For whatever reason, this is certainly not an easy style to play and make succeed. Which, of course, is the reason for the thread. I still consider this a very worthwhile type of game - but very difficult to execute.
Also, I found 5-6 players. Twice. Wasn't hard, either. Simply think of it as Rogue-lite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Twice I've tried to make a game where final victory isn't an option. This is over a RPG career of 35+ years, so it's not like I'm wilfully banging my head against a wall or anything. Regardless, and likely unsurprising, it hasn't ended well.
What I was trying to do was play around with a feeling of impending doom. The bug people from beyond the desert are coming, and there's no stopping them, they are beyond numbers - all we can hope for is to stem the tide long enough for most of our civilians to make it to the sea, and into boats. The bugs didn't bring any ships with them. That sort of thing, right? So you, the player character, is certainly going to die (actually, you'll likely reroll many times during the campaign). But some 'victory' condition does exist.
Both times, I warned in advance: This is the premise. Don't get attached to your guy or girl, because I fully intend to be merciless, and the enemies are literally without number. Your tactics should not be to win, but to stall for time.
Both times the game got players, but the games fell apart within a couple of weeks.
So, my question: Is this simply not doable? What could I do different?
Maybe you need to consider your campaign differently, even in a fundamentally un winnable situation the players can still have victories and feel at the end that things are better because of what they did.
I am running a similar campaign, I have not told the players this but, fundamentally, there actions will not stop the advancing forces of the evil empire, they are too vast and massive. The reason I haven't told the players this is because their story isn't focused on defeating the advancing armies, right now they are trying to get into a besieged city to help extract out the leadership to help form a resistance. They will also along the way have the opportunity, if they take it, to help save a group of children, to help various other people escape etc. The city is going to fall, they can't stop that, what they can do is feel they did everything they could to try and get people out. The next stage of the adventure after this will involve them doing something entirely different, but, in succeeding they will understand they have stalled not halted the advance. Even if they decide to try and go and kill the emperor of this evil empire, they will discover that even his death can't stop the constant crawl forward, but, they will have the ability to out in place things that might mean change begins, understanding that the change might take hundreds of years.
I am not having to be brutal, or run a DM vs Players game here, the world is Grimdark, life for the ordinary person is going to be really bad before it gets remotely better, but, in that situation small victories feel like massive wins. The plan is for this to be part of a 3 campaign epic spanning about 15-20 years of real time. Each stage will take place in a different century with ultimate success not possible until campaign 3, and even then, it won't be sunshine and rainbows.
I suggest you read some 40K fiction, or have a look at the 40K TTRPG, the whole premise of that is that ultimately the bad guys will win because no one is good. Players might wipe out a Genestealer infestation only to see the planet virus bombed anyway just because it can't be risked that the population know Genestealers exist. They might kill a demon cult only to find out the plan all along was for them to destroy that cult because the blood spilled allowed a bigger demon to appear somewhere else. 40K books are very good at presenting an impossible situation and making you feel the protagonist, even in failure, achieved a success.
Instead of making the grimdark a daily part of the campaign, have it there as a constant in the world, let the players know up front, this is the world we are playing in, but let them have wins, small wins, that while not stopping the overarching narrative does allow them to feel they have done a good thing in a world of horrors.
Honestly, I feel like htis has capacity to work, but requires player buy-in and a suitable level of preface.
This being a cataclysmic end-of-the-world scenario, it needs to have gravitas, and it needs to be high level. Players using comparitively weak characters is going to suck if they are also on the short road to an early grave - the main reason for playing at low levels is to try and progress, whilst the main reason for playing at high levels is to be awesome and do cool stuff. So I'd go for levels 17-20.
Next, I recommend that you ask the players to pick their 5 favourite characters they've ever played, and then level them up to 20 (or wherever you are running it) and age them. Emphasise that they will need to be characters who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the people of the world, so avoid bringing chaotic-shady characters who will want to save themselves!
Assuming you have 5 players, this gives you 25 super-high level characters in one place. Have them all in one location at the start, and be told the grave news - that the world is ending, and they are their only hope to get the people to safety. Make them aware before they bring characters in that this is the plot hook - their characters need to work with it. A mite railroady perhaps, but sometimes a good story needs to start in the right direction.
Now, make 5 quests which each have degrees of success, and which are designed to give as epic of a finale for the characters as possible. You're looking for the players to feel like "wow, that was the best possible way for my character to die", not "oh, guess we only made it halfway through, oh well". Make it huge and cinematic. Here are some ideas, based on your concept of an unstoppable tide of tyranids Bugs washing over the land:
There is an ancient tower in the centre of the desert, which supposedly holds an artefact which can create a huge bubble of force, which will force the bugs to go around it instead of through. Essentially an awesome fight through the tower, past ancient defences, and then to find the bugs have arrived and they have to defend the tower for as long as they can whilst the ritual is performed to activate the orb of osuvox force field artefact. One party must go there (one character per player).
Legend tells of a colossal beast that lives in the desert. Awakening such a beast would surely spell the doom of the waker - and any bugs who happen to be in the region.
There is an incredibly powerful lich who has warded their keep against the bugs. It is too late to replicate the wards for the city, but if they can be broken, the Lich will be forced to fight the horde.
The horde of bugs is led by enormous motherbugs, and they will defend them. Getting on board will require an airship, but once you're there, the horde will turn to you instead of advancing on the city.
Advance parties of scouts have been seen on the way to the city from the coast - they need to be delayed before they get to the ships and destroy them. Give a good, cinematic battlefield with loads of stuff (downed airships with siege weapons and barrels of oil on board, for example).
An Artificer believes that there might be a way to control one of the motherbugs - hack your way into it's brain and try out the magical macguffin to have an epic kaiju battle.
Run these back to back, perhaps even alternating on which session covers which group, and then when they have finished (IE the battle is actually won or the heroes have had a worthy demise) then you can gauge their success - failure means the people all die, whereas the last session of the last party might see the last hero look out on the flotilla of ships sailing across the horizon from the top of a tower swarming with bugs, and smile.
I feel like from a player perspective this would appeal more as a one-shot than as a 'campaign'.
Coming into a one-shot session, planning my character etc knowing I will ultimately just be delaying the inevitable I could get behind, thinking 'This is my character who will make their heroic last stand eventually'.
Coming into a campaign with this in mind I'd be thinking "Well whats the point of building this character, trying to tell their story/progress through an 'adventure' when ultimately nothing I do will make much difference and I'm dying regardless".
What Scarloc suggested may be the best way to go about it if it MUST be a campaign though, yes this is going to be a grim adventure but there will still be victorys moreso than just "Yay we saved an extra 2 people but then we all got murked".
I feel like from a player perspective this would appeal more as a one-shot than as a 'campaign'.
Coming into a one-shot session, planning my character etc knowing I will ultimately just be delaying the inevitable I could get behind, thinking 'This is my character who will make their heroic last stand eventually'.
Coming into a campaign with this in mind I'd be thinking "Well whats the point of building this character, trying to tell their story/progress through an 'adventure' when ultimately nothing I do will make much difference and I'm dying regardless".
What Scarloc suggested may be the best way to go about it if it MUST be a campaign though, yes this is going to be a grim adventure but there will still be victorys moreso than just "Yay we saved an extra 2 people but then we all got murked".
Just to clarify even in my grimdark world I don't come in with the expectation there will be a TPK by the end, the campaign may end with the characters holding up as a last bastion of defence, they might have found a way to help the survivors/refugees, escape to another continent, plane etc. They might end up the campaign having set up a network of spies, informants, resistance cells and having killed some of the key figures creating a symbol of hope.
My campaigns now days are never, kill the dragon free the realm and they all lived happily ever after, they are always shades of grey, in my current one the evil empire that is marching forwards is openly racist, they believe in purity of race, so all half races are either killed or taken into slavery, that city that has been besieged, there is an orhanage there full of half orc, half elf, half dwarf, half any race you can think of children, children born to families in the empire, secret lovers etc who then hid there own children away in what they thought was a safe city. If the characters choose not to save them they will either observe or find the aftermath of a youngling moment, with soldiers of the empire going in and slaughtering them. Now I know many DM's baulk at the idea of having children killed in game, but my players understand that is the kind of world they are playing in.
It is a tough thing to balance and get right to make it grimdark enough while making the players feel that there is some point to what they are doing. After 25 years of DMing I fell I am just about getting there but, it has taken me 25 years of playing multiple other systems in other worlds that encourage this style of play (cthulu, legend of the 5 rings, world of darkness, 40K TTRPG, Paranoia, Cyberpunk and many others) to be able to apply it to a system like DnD that doesn't inherently present that style as the right one for the system.
That isn't to say I don't also run campaigns where the good guys can def win and save the day, there is just always an element of grimness about it all :)
I agree 100% with your first statement: It needs very clear buy-in - based on very clear communication of 'this is the type of game on offer'.
Then, I totally disagree on level. But be not discouraged, it may simply be because I never play high level. However, I also like the rogue-like aspect: Just make 5 low level characters, and don't put too much effort into it - they're not going to live long anyways, most likely.
And then, I once again agree 100% with your conclusion: Make a number of quests, each with variable levels of succes, to determine the final outcome of the campaign, as well as the fate of the characters.
GM vs players has come up a number of times. I think that's entirely missing the target: With buy-in, that's just not the case. And it's not like this is in any way comparable to 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. It's 'you have 100 guys plus 5 player characters - sadly, the enemy counts in their many many thousands'. Keep them at bay as long as possible, escape if you can - or fight to the end, because that sacrifice might be worth something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Actaully ... maybe I should do a quick description of the two games.
One I've already mentioned: Bugs from beyond the desert. In a bit more detail, 300 years ago all the nations of men had to unite to throw back the hordes of thri-kreen-like insect goons that came from somewhere on the other side of the great, trackless desert. Those attacks had been a regular thing, every 20 years - but since the last great battle, the bugs stopped coming. Regardless, human armies have gathered each 25 years since, to man the fortresses at the deserts edge. With the threat apparently gone, and tensions rising, this has become more of a small parade than any real preparation for war.
Lo and behold, on this day of our Lord the bugs have returned, in numbers beyond anything history prepared us for. Queue utter collapse at the fortress. But not until significant casualties are inflicted, and the advance delayed.
Number two is different: The Nine, the Fallen Lords, masters of undeath and necromancy, have risen again in the east. War has been joined, but the struggle is desperate.
Now, in the town of Whateverburg (far from the front, mind you) citizens awake one morning to find their walls surrounded by the armies of Gahad - one of The Nine.
This was a solo rogue-like game. You awake, you had a vision from god: Only you can stop The Nine. Go out, fight, die. Roll a new character, but retain the (player) knowledge of what you learned - also, you can go find the corpse of your past character. This was actually great - but it still didn't last.
Maybe number two was a little unfair. It was open world - so the goo monster in the crypt was just 6 hd, no matter the level of the character. You go that way, that's the monster you meet. So learn from that, and return when you can win. Anyways, that was how I built it, deliberately.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I have to say, the concept isn't unworkable. It can be really fun and provide and awesome atmosphere. Anyone play Halo: Reach? Was anyone under the impression that they were going to win? Not overly related, but was anyone actually under the impression that Noble would survive?
Knowing that a situation is unbeatable provides a very strong atmosphere. It's one that is attempted to be established by many action stories. A lot of the time, there will be an "all is lost" scene where the hero seemingly fails and all hope is lost. Looking at LotR, we have Isengard managing to get into Helm's Deep, Mordor entering Minas Tirith, Frodo succumbing to temptation and claiming the Ring for himself. Now, granted, we do have a cultural expectation that the good guys win, so we end up with Deus Ex Machinas to save the day, but those moments of failure provide an interesting atmosphere. We have entire TV series based around the idea that society is screwed and we just have to deal with it (a recent BBC War of the Worlds adaptation is an example).
The premise is fine, so long as players understand what they're doing. It does have to be done well, so players recognise that the DM isn't merely being antagonistic. I'd also recommend that the DM doesn't do a "Halo: Reach" where the party is certain to die. Just let the players know that the gloves will be off - the end of the world is nigh, so death is a real possibility - but good play will see them through, as well as strategic retreats.
That said...the OP hasn't elaborated on why it's falling apart. What's actually happening? Have you had open and genuine discussions with the players to find out why the parties are falling apart? Do you know that it's not just bad luck? Are they initially interested and then finding that it's not what they expected? Is there something about how you're DMing that's maybe causing issues?
If there is a fault with the premise, I'd say it's that the players think it's going to be great, but find the reality is different. Some people enjoy those "you're going to lose, but you get to decide how much of it is mitigated" scenarios. Others don't. Depending on how you run it, I could be in either camp - I'm not a big fan of having frayed nerves. If your style runs on the wrong side for an individual, I could see them backing out. You have to decide whether you want change to accommodate them, or if you want to persist.
How you construct also matters. What I'd be reserved about is that I'd suspect that it would become essentially a series of arena fights against increasingly powerful foes. I mean, I enjoy combat, but narrative matters as well, and I can see it becoming constant fighting as the DM seeks to maintain and increase tension.
There are a lot of reasons why this might be going wrong. It's a very difficult scenario to pull off well. What do your players say?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That said...the OP hasn't elaborated on why it's falling apart. What's actually happening? Have you had open and genuine discussions with the players to find out why the parties are falling apart? Do you know that it's not just bad luck? Are they initially interested and then finding that it's not what they expected? Is there something about how you're DMing that's maybe causing issues?
There are a lot of reasons why this might be going wrong. It's a very difficult scenario to pull off well. What do your players say?
I agree with all you said - but the above is the most crucial to me.
What's happening? Well, in my experience, PbP games do have a tendency to fall apart. I've launched quite a few, and while 3 managed to get to venerable old age, campaigns spanning years - most have floundered and shipwrecked over time.
Let's just be honest too: I'm not the greatest GM. I'm great at telling stories, good at actually reacting to player input, ok at keeping a decent pace, so-so at combat at best, rather terrible at actually remembering character sheets and what each can do, and I'm utterly hopeless in terms of backstories - I basically never use them for anything.
So it's give and take, right? Good at some things, crap at others.
But yes I've asked for feedback - but never really received any. Or, only the positive. For some reason. It's like maybe they feel sorry for me? 'You're a nice guy, but maybe you should find another hobby,' kinda thing? =) I have received quite a bit of very positive feedback, but obviously from my longstanding campaigns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
That said...the OP hasn't elaborated on why it's falling apart. What's actually happening? Have you had open and genuine discussions with the players to find out why the parties are falling apart? Do you know that it's not just bad luck? Are they initially interested and then finding that it's not what they expected? Is there something about how you're DMing that's maybe causing issues?
There are a lot of reasons why this might be going wrong. It's a very difficult scenario to pull off well. What do your players say?
I agree with all you said - but the above is the most crucial to me.
What's happening? Well, in my experience, PbP games do have a tendency to fall apart. I've launched quite a few, and while 3 managed to get to venerable old age, campaigns spanning years - most have floundered and shipwrecked over time.
Let's just be honest too: I'm not the greatest GM. I'm great at telling stories, good at actually reacting to player input, ok at keeping a decent pace, so-so at combat at best, rather terrible at actually remembering character sheets and what each can do, and I'm utterly hopeless in terms of backstories - I basically never use them for anything.
So it's give and take, right? Good at some things, crap at others.
But yes I've asked for feedback - but never really received any. Or, only the positive. For some reason. It's like maybe they feel sorry for me? 'You're a nice guy, but maybe you should find another hobby,' kinda thing? =) I have received quite a bit of very positive feedback, but obviously from my longstanding campaigns.
Sounds like you're good at the most important bits and less so on the less important bits. I'd far rather be in a game run by a good storyteller who has the world react to my actions than someone who runs a predictable railroad including my backstory and tailored to my abilities! Chances are your players also considered these good points and enjoyed their games, which is where positive feedback tends to come from!
I'm fortunate that I have my partner in a lot of my games and I've forced her to be brutally honest with me, which has given me a few good pointers on improving!
I think you hit the nail on the head with it being a pbp game. You are massively limiting your player base. Your initial game idea sounds like a Sparta or 300 style idea which would be interesting to try, but throw in pbp and that would be me gone.
Ah, I think we have hit the problem, I didn't realise you were running a PbP.
With these "you can't win, you can only do what you can to mitigate the failure" type stories, you're playing the long game. Slowly ratcheting up the stakes and threat to build tension, you're hoping that each session is enough to keep people coming until it starts to bear fruit later with a tense atmosphere, desperate acts and last ditch efforts to hold back the inevitable. Over the course io a few hours in the first sessions, you play a balancing act between excitement and doom, so that later the notes really hit home.
With PbP, I've not played it, but I imagine the mechanics of it means that you're fighting for each post. You have to make every moment count, or you lose people to attrition. Unlike a normal session, they're not locked in for 3 or 4 hours that give you room to pull them back in if things get a little too tame or playing the long game (not being quite as exciting now in return for a bigger return later). If a player doesn't feel like it's gripping now, then it's easy to just...not come back. You don't have table banter and so forth to help either. You have to go for the short term pay offs to keep cohesion.
I'm not sure that your story is a particularly great fit for the medium. It's a good idea, but it's more suited to a traditional campaign where long term payoffs are more viable. That's not to say it's impossible to pull off in a PbP game, but combine the inherent challenges with the fact that PbP probably has a high attrition rate anyway...and you're facing an uphill battle. You either have to be really good as a PbP DM, or just strike gold with the ideal party that is patient enough that they'll just keep coming back even if there are periods where they're not getting immediate payoffs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think PbP is probably a big problem, but it also needs to be said that you might have some communication issues that need to be addressed. You have a few posts here that throw up red flags. You seem to blame others for “misunderstanding” your campaign—but when multiple people reach the same “wrong” conclusion, the error is likely on the speaker. You leave out critical facts, like this being a play by post game. You come off as a little dismissive of constricted criticism (which is likely why your players do not feel it is worthwhile to provide any). You make a few responses that seem to miss elements of the very post you are responding to.
I say that not to be mean or insult you, but because you came here asking for feedback and I suspect how you communicate to your players about the campaign is not exactly in line with the realities of your campaign. As I said, your campaigns are ones requiring a very specific type of player - if you are not communicating expectations well from the get-go, that is going to cause player retention problems. It is probably worth reevaluating your campaign pitch, and possibly working with a neutral, outside observer to ensure you get you are conveying what you wish to convey.
I do want to take a moment to address the “contract” analogy—one I find personally distasteful as it is most often used by DMs seeking to excuse their own conduct by saying “if they players did not want this, they would not have agreed to it.”
Even a first year law student—the least qualified group on the planet to talk about law—can say a few basic things about contracts. That ambiguity is construed against the drafter (the DM in this case); that a contract based on mutual mistake (players and DM have different expectations of what the campaign is) can be voidable; that misrepresentations by one party (a DM not communicating the campaign idea well) can justify the other party (the players) walking away from the contract. And, of course, that anyone applying contracts to a social interaction like D&D is probably misunderstanding both how D&D operates and how contract law works.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of a player. It does sound cool as a concept, and as a player, I go back to becmi, so characters dying is no big deal for me. But then when it comes to the actual play of it, I could see myself starting to think “why am I here.” I already know how the story is going to end, and it’s going to end with my failure, so what’s the point of playing this through?
One of the reasons to play D&D is the hero fantasy. Being the only person (well, party) in the right place with the right knowledge to save the world. Or at least save the village. Knowing that I’m doomed to failure no matter what I do, then why do anything?
And I realize you’re trying to make it clear up front that’s the concept. But what people think they will like, and what they actually like don’t always match.
Are you able to mix the games up in terms of types of events? Actions and reactions of NPCs to and around the players? Other world or local events that effect the players and their approach to the final goals? Is there significantly more than just the relentless onslaught of the bug people?
You may be doing a much better job at this than I would, but I think this sort of setting could quickly become very 'samey' for every session. Also, if the ultimate end result is failure, are you giving the characters ample opportunities to succeed in other areas? I think one of the common things people play for is the heroic aspect, and knowing that despite their skills, abilities and all their hard work they are doomed to failure would quickly lead to boredom, frustration and/or hopelessness on the part of the characters. Saving a bunch of (I'm guessing) vague, nameless NPCs probably isn't enough to keep most players engaged. I personally wouldn't find that particularly rewarding.
As a last thought, I wouldn't be surprised if many people who are willing to sign up for this thinking they might enjoy it realize after they start playing that the over all experience isn't going to be satisfying for them.
All game styles have learning curves and play by post is not for everyone so I would run a few sessions where players can make mistakes and have them not have any impact on their PC's. Also in todays environment (fast pace, video games, etc) a slow play by post game may have fewer people interested and people may not stick with it for a long period of time. ie I would much rather play Elden Ring for 30 min then read 30 min of material and then post my action(s).
Also how you enact the drama is huge in such a game and not being face to face in probable hindering what you are trying to do.
I have also seen an issue in the past with an author using this method to work out ideas for his book and when players suspected and found out out it they were really put off.
For me, I role play to role play. Whatever the situation - traps, puzzles, fights etc. I want to real time interact with people and bounce ideas back and forth etc. What I don’t want to do is write a couple of lines of text and then have to wait 3 days for someone to reply or the dm to say “your attack missed”. That’s mind numbing for me. Some people are okay with it and that’s great but not me.
I had a similar experience. I was staying with friends and we wanted to game, but we only had time for a few sessions, so I hit on what I thought was a great idea... I tried to do the non-ending ending. The bad guys have escaped, but our heroes know where they're going. Will they affect a rescue? Stay tuned for next time... Except that's not how it worked out. We got to the final encounter, but the players became more and more frantic as I tried to make clear this was a non-ending. Eventually we called the session because emotions were running high and tempers were flaring. It got me wondering if table top RPGs are just bad when you're not telling the one story of the PCs inevitable rise to fame and power... It should be possible to tell these kinds of stories. TV, manga, and movies are replete with story arcs that test characters mettle by means of no-win scenarios. Sometimes those are people's favorite stories. Shouldn't that translate into storytelling games?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Twice I've tried to make a game where final victory isn't an option. This is over a RPG career of 35+ years, so it's not like I'm wilfully banging my head against a wall or anything. Regardless, and likely unsurprising, it hasn't ended well.
What I was trying to do was play around with a feeling of impending doom. The bug people from beyond the desert are coming, and there's no stopping them, they are beyond numbers - all we can hope for is to stem the tide long enough for most of our civilians to make it to the sea, and into boats. The bugs didn't bring any ships with them. That sort of thing, right? So you, the player character, is certainly going to die (actually, you'll likely reroll many times during the campaign). But some 'victory' condition does exist.
Both times, I warned in advance: This is the premise. Don't get attached to your guy or girl, because I fully intend to be merciless, and the enemies are literally without number. Your tactics should not be to win, but to stall for time.
Both times the game got players, but the games fell apart within a couple of weeks.
So, my question: Is this simply not doable? What could I do different?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Without offense meant, your design seems fundamentally doomed to failure based on the very specific type of player you for this to work. This is not merely finding a player willing to play with a DM v. Player mentality--a playstyle that is increasingly less popular--you need to find a player who is okay with a DM v. Player mentality where the Player is told from the beginning that the DM will eventually be unfair and kill the player, so no real promise of the social compact that makes DM v. Player work (i.e. "I will try to kill you, but I also will not drop a Tiamat on your Level 1 characters, even though I can do that). Not only that, the player is told from the beginning that, in the DM v. Player dynamic, they will lose eventually--and even if they "succeed" in stalling, the DM will always prove victorious.
This hypothetical player must also not be super invested in storytelling--after all, who really wants to participate in a story where the ending is told to you from the start, and, no matter what you do, you know you can only change some of the specifics but not the ultimate outcome.
This player must also not grow bored with the fait accompli story as they play and must not grow tired of constantly asking "is today the day the other shoe drops and we party wipe?" That will wear on a player pretty quickly--even if they thought the idea sounded fun, expectations of enjoyment often are crushed under the weight of actuality. I expect this is why your games fell apart pretty quickly--folks realizing they did not actually like what they signed up for.
Those are a lot of factors which, taken together make for a rather rare player--effectively boiling down to a player who is willing to let the DM run wild over the campaign to tell their story, at the expense of the self-determination which is the fundamental hallmark of D&D.
And, of course, even if you do find a player who both finds the idea exciting and will continue to find the idea exciting for more than a couple weeks.... you still need to find three more such individuals.
I disagree entirely about being unfair. It's totally upfront, part of the 'contract': The odds aren't anything like fair, encounters are not about killing off all the enemies, but (as an example) buying time for civilians to escape. This is a game about doom. Not about averting it, but ... maybe buying hope for others. The various encounters would have clear objectives - and it would ultimately be up to the players if they fought to the bitter end, or escaped alive. Depending on the scenario, one or the other might be more advantageous, overall.
In some encounters I'd provide units of cannon fodder to use strategically, while PC's could move around the battlefield, giving support.
Also - obviously, they didn't know the ending. They knew the threat (bugmen from beyond the desert), and were given objectives for each .. chapter, encounter, whatever. We never reached the point of the civilians and remnats of the army setting sail for the other (rumored) continent.
I also don't agree that the story in any way is boring. Quite the opposite: Since succes is generally always assured, all the normal stories are boring: It's just a question of finding out how to succeed. In this game, they literally didn't know the outcome. Also, I find it's fertile soil for roleplay: How does your character handle this fight. They were welcome to just panic and run too.
But you're right that the games fell apart quickly because the players didn't ... find the enjoyment they expected. For whatever reason, this is certainly not an easy style to play and make succeed. Which, of course, is the reason for the thread. I still consider this a very worthwhile type of game - but very difficult to execute.
Also, I found 5-6 players. Twice. Wasn't hard, either. Simply think of it as Rogue-lite.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Maybe you need to consider your campaign differently, even in a fundamentally un winnable situation the players can still have victories and feel at the end that things are better because of what they did.
I am running a similar campaign, I have not told the players this but, fundamentally, there actions will not stop the advancing forces of the evil empire, they are too vast and massive. The reason I haven't told the players this is because their story isn't focused on defeating the advancing armies, right now they are trying to get into a besieged city to help extract out the leadership to help form a resistance. They will also along the way have the opportunity, if they take it, to help save a group of children, to help various other people escape etc. The city is going to fall, they can't stop that, what they can do is feel they did everything they could to try and get people out. The next stage of the adventure after this will involve them doing something entirely different, but, in succeeding they will understand they have stalled not halted the advance. Even if they decide to try and go and kill the emperor of this evil empire, they will discover that even his death can't stop the constant crawl forward, but, they will have the ability to out in place things that might mean change begins, understanding that the change might take hundreds of years.
I am not having to be brutal, or run a DM vs Players game here, the world is Grimdark, life for the ordinary person is going to be really bad before it gets remotely better, but, in that situation small victories feel like massive wins. The plan is for this to be part of a 3 campaign epic spanning about 15-20 years of real time. Each stage will take place in a different century with ultimate success not possible until campaign 3, and even then, it won't be sunshine and rainbows.
I suggest you read some 40K fiction, or have a look at the 40K TTRPG, the whole premise of that is that ultimately the bad guys will win because no one is good. Players might wipe out a Genestealer infestation only to see the planet virus bombed anyway just because it can't be risked that the population know Genestealers exist. They might kill a demon cult only to find out the plan all along was for them to destroy that cult because the blood spilled allowed a bigger demon to appear somewhere else. 40K books are very good at presenting an impossible situation and making you feel the protagonist, even in failure, achieved a success.
Instead of making the grimdark a daily part of the campaign, have it there as a constant in the world, let the players know up front, this is the world we are playing in, but let them have wins, small wins, that while not stopping the overarching narrative does allow them to feel they have done a good thing in a world of horrors.
Honestly, I feel like htis has capacity to work, but requires player buy-in and a suitable level of preface.
This being a cataclysmic end-of-the-world scenario, it needs to have gravitas, and it needs to be high level. Players using comparitively weak characters is going to suck if they are also on the short road to an early grave - the main reason for playing at low levels is to try and progress, whilst the main reason for playing at high levels is to be awesome and do cool stuff. So I'd go for levels 17-20.
Next, I recommend that you ask the players to pick their 5 favourite characters they've ever played, and then level them up to 20 (or wherever you are running it) and age them. Emphasise that they will need to be characters who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the people of the world, so avoid bringing chaotic-shady characters who will want to save themselves!
Assuming you have 5 players, this gives you 25 super-high level characters in one place. Have them all in one location at the start, and be told the grave news - that the world is ending, and they are their only hope to get the people to safety. Make them aware before they bring characters in that this is the plot hook - their characters need to work with it. A mite railroady perhaps, but sometimes a good story needs to start in the right direction.
Now, make 5 quests which each have degrees of success, and which are designed to give as epic of a finale for the characters as possible. You're looking for the players to feel like "wow, that was the best possible way for my character to die", not "oh, guess we only made it halfway through, oh well". Make it huge and cinematic. Here are some ideas, based on your concept of an unstoppable tide of
tyranidsBugs washing over the land:orb of osuvoxforce field artefact. One party must go there (one character per player).Run these back to back, perhaps even alternating on which session covers which group, and then when they have finished (IE the battle is actually won or the heroes have had a worthy demise) then you can gauge their success - failure means the people all die, whereas the last session of the last party might see the last hero look out on the flotilla of ships sailing across the horizon from the top of a tower swarming with bugs, and smile.
I hope this helps!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I feel like from a player perspective this would appeal more as a one-shot than as a 'campaign'.
Coming into a one-shot session, planning my character etc knowing I will ultimately just be delaying the inevitable I could get behind, thinking 'This is my character who will make their heroic last stand eventually'.
Coming into a campaign with this in mind I'd be thinking "Well whats the point of building this character, trying to tell their story/progress through an 'adventure' when ultimately nothing I do will make much difference and I'm dying regardless".
What Scarloc suggested may be the best way to go about it if it MUST be a campaign though, yes this is going to be a grim adventure but there will still be victorys moreso than just "Yay we saved an extra 2 people but then we all got murked".
Just to clarify even in my grimdark world I don't come in with the expectation there will be a TPK by the end, the campaign may end with the characters holding up as a last bastion of defence, they might have found a way to help the survivors/refugees, escape to another continent, plane etc. They might end up the campaign having set up a network of spies, informants, resistance cells and having killed some of the key figures creating a symbol of hope.
My campaigns now days are never, kill the dragon free the realm and they all lived happily ever after, they are always shades of grey, in my current one the evil empire that is marching forwards is openly racist, they believe in purity of race, so all half races are either killed or taken into slavery, that city that has been besieged, there is an orhanage there full of half orc, half elf, half dwarf, half any race you can think of children, children born to families in the empire, secret lovers etc who then hid there own children away in what they thought was a safe city. If the characters choose not to save them they will either observe or find the aftermath of a youngling moment, with soldiers of the empire going in and slaughtering them. Now I know many DM's baulk at the idea of having children killed in game, but my players understand that is the kind of world they are playing in.
It is a tough thing to balance and get right to make it grimdark enough while making the players feel that there is some point to what they are doing. After 25 years of DMing I fell I am just about getting there but, it has taken me 25 years of playing multiple other systems in other worlds that encourage this style of play (cthulu, legend of the 5 rings, world of darkness, 40K TTRPG, Paranoia, Cyberpunk and many others) to be able to apply it to a system like DnD that doesn't inherently present that style as the right one for the system.
That isn't to say I don't also run campaigns where the good guys can def win and save the day, there is just always an element of grimness about it all :)
@Thoruk
I agree 100% with your first statement: It needs very clear buy-in - based on very clear communication of 'this is the type of game on offer'.
Then, I totally disagree on level. But be not discouraged, it may simply be because I never play high level. However, I also like the rogue-like aspect: Just make 5 low level characters, and don't put too much effort into it - they're not going to live long anyways, most likely.
And then, I once again agree 100% with your conclusion: Make a number of quests, each with variable levels of succes, to determine the final outcome of the campaign, as well as the fate of the characters.
GM vs players has come up a number of times. I think that's entirely missing the target: With buy-in, that's just not the case. And it's not like this is in any way comparable to 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. It's 'you have 100 guys plus 5 player characters - sadly, the enemy counts in their many many thousands'. Keep them at bay as long as possible, escape if you can - or fight to the end, because that sacrifice might be worth something.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Actaully ... maybe I should do a quick description of the two games.
One I've already mentioned: Bugs from beyond the desert. In a bit more detail, 300 years ago all the nations of men had to unite to throw back the hordes of thri-kreen-like insect goons that came from somewhere on the other side of the great, trackless desert. Those attacks had been a regular thing, every 20 years - but since the last great battle, the bugs stopped coming. Regardless, human armies have gathered each 25 years since, to man the fortresses at the deserts edge. With the threat apparently gone, and tensions rising, this has become more of a small parade than any real preparation for war.
Lo and behold, on this day of our Lord the bugs have returned, in numbers beyond anything history prepared us for. Queue utter collapse at the fortress. But not until significant casualties are inflicted, and the advance delayed.
Number two is different: The Nine, the Fallen Lords, masters of undeath and necromancy, have risen again in the east. War has been joined, but the struggle is desperate.
Now, in the town of Whateverburg (far from the front, mind you) citizens awake one morning to find their walls surrounded by the armies of Gahad - one of The Nine.
This was a solo rogue-like game. You awake, you had a vision from god: Only you can stop The Nine. Go out, fight, die. Roll a new character, but retain the (player) knowledge of what you learned - also, you can go find the corpse of your past character. This was actually great - but it still didn't last.
Maybe number two was a little unfair. It was open world - so the goo monster in the crypt was just 6 hd, no matter the level of the character. You go that way, that's the monster you meet. So learn from that, and return when you can win. Anyways, that was how I built it, deliberately.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I have to say, the concept isn't unworkable. It can be really fun and provide and awesome atmosphere. Anyone play Halo: Reach? Was anyone under the impression that they were going to win? Not overly related, but was anyone actually under the impression that Noble would survive?
Knowing that a situation is unbeatable provides a very strong atmosphere. It's one that is attempted to be established by many action stories. A lot of the time, there will be an "all is lost" scene where the hero seemingly fails and all hope is lost. Looking at LotR, we have Isengard managing to get into Helm's Deep, Mordor entering Minas Tirith, Frodo succumbing to temptation and claiming the Ring for himself. Now, granted, we do have a cultural expectation that the good guys win, so we end up with Deus Ex Machinas to save the day, but those moments of failure provide an interesting atmosphere. We have entire TV series based around the idea that society is screwed and we just have to deal with it (a recent BBC War of the Worlds adaptation is an example).
The premise is fine, so long as players understand what they're doing. It does have to be done well, so players recognise that the DM isn't merely being antagonistic. I'd also recommend that the DM doesn't do a "Halo: Reach" where the party is certain to die. Just let the players know that the gloves will be off - the end of the world is nigh, so death is a real possibility - but good play will see them through, as well as strategic retreats.
That said...the OP hasn't elaborated on why it's falling apart. What's actually happening? Have you had open and genuine discussions with the players to find out why the parties are falling apart? Do you know that it's not just bad luck? Are they initially interested and then finding that it's not what they expected? Is there something about how you're DMing that's maybe causing issues?
If there is a fault with the premise, I'd say it's that the players think it's going to be great, but find the reality is different. Some people enjoy those "you're going to lose, but you get to decide how much of it is mitigated" scenarios. Others don't. Depending on how you run it, I could be in either camp - I'm not a big fan of having frayed nerves. If your style runs on the wrong side for an individual, I could see them backing out. You have to decide whether you want change to accommodate them, or if you want to persist.
How you construct also matters. What I'd be reserved about is that I'd suspect that it would become essentially a series of arena fights against increasingly powerful foes. I mean, I enjoy combat, but narrative matters as well, and I can see it becoming constant fighting as the DM seeks to maintain and increase tension.
There are a lot of reasons why this might be going wrong. It's a very difficult scenario to pull off well. What do your players say?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I agree with all you said - but the above is the most crucial to me.
What's happening? Well, in my experience, PbP games do have a tendency to fall apart. I've launched quite a few, and while 3 managed to get to venerable old age, campaigns spanning years - most have floundered and shipwrecked over time.
Let's just be honest too: I'm not the greatest GM. I'm great at telling stories, good at actually reacting to player input, ok at keeping a decent pace, so-so at combat at best, rather terrible at actually remembering character sheets and what each can do, and I'm utterly hopeless in terms of backstories - I basically never use them for anything.
So it's give and take, right? Good at some things, crap at others.
But yes I've asked for feedback - but never really received any. Or, only the positive. For some reason. It's like maybe they feel sorry for me? 'You're a nice guy, but maybe you should find another hobby,' kinda thing? =) I have received quite a bit of very positive feedback, but obviously from my longstanding campaigns.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sounds like you're good at the most important bits and less so on the less important bits. I'd far rather be in a game run by a good storyteller who has the world react to my actions than someone who runs a predictable railroad including my backstory and tailored to my abilities! Chances are your players also considered these good points and enjoyed their games, which is where positive feedback tends to come from!
I'm fortunate that I have my partner in a lot of my games and I've forced her to be brutally honest with me, which has given me a few good pointers on improving!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think you hit the nail on the head with it being a pbp game. You are massively limiting your player base. Your initial game idea sounds like a Sparta or 300 style idea which would be interesting to try, but throw in pbp and that would be me gone.
Ah, I think we have hit the problem, I didn't realise you were running a PbP.
With these "you can't win, you can only do what you can to mitigate the failure" type stories, you're playing the long game. Slowly ratcheting up the stakes and threat to build tension, you're hoping that each session is enough to keep people coming until it starts to bear fruit later with a tense atmosphere, desperate acts and last ditch efforts to hold back the inevitable. Over the course io a few hours in the first sessions, you play a balancing act between excitement and doom, so that later the notes really hit home.
With PbP, I've not played it, but I imagine the mechanics of it means that you're fighting for each post. You have to make every moment count, or you lose people to attrition. Unlike a normal session, they're not locked in for 3 or 4 hours that give you room to pull them back in if things get a little too tame or playing the long game (not being quite as exciting now in return for a bigger return later). If a player doesn't feel like it's gripping now, then it's easy to just...not come back. You don't have table banter and so forth to help either. You have to go for the short term pay offs to keep cohesion.
I'm not sure that your story is a particularly great fit for the medium. It's a good idea, but it's more suited to a traditional campaign where long term payoffs are more viable. That's not to say it's impossible to pull off in a PbP game, but combine the inherent challenges with the fact that PbP probably has a high attrition rate anyway...and you're facing an uphill battle. You either have to be really good as a PbP DM, or just strike gold with the ideal party that is patient enough that they'll just keep coming back even if there are periods where they're not getting immediate payoffs.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think PbP is probably a big problem, but it also needs to be said that you might have some communication issues that need to be addressed. You have a few posts here that throw up red flags. You seem to blame others for “misunderstanding” your campaign—but when multiple people reach the same “wrong” conclusion, the error is likely on the speaker. You leave out critical facts, like this being a play by post game. You come off as a little dismissive of constricted criticism (which is likely why your players do not feel it is worthwhile to provide any). You make a few responses that seem to miss elements of the very post you are responding to.
I say that not to be mean or insult you, but because you came here asking for feedback and I suspect how you communicate to your players about the campaign is not exactly in line with the realities of your campaign. As I said, your campaigns are ones requiring a very specific type of player - if you are not communicating expectations well from the get-go, that is going to cause player retention problems. It is probably worth reevaluating your campaign pitch, and possibly working with a neutral, outside observer to ensure you get you are conveying what you wish to convey.
I do want to take a moment to address the “contract” analogy—one I find personally distasteful as it is most often used by DMs seeking to excuse their own conduct by saying “if they players did not want this, they would not have agreed to it.”
Even a first year law student—the least qualified group on the planet to talk about law—can say a few basic things about contracts. That ambiguity is construed against the drafter (the DM in this case); that a contract based on mutual mistake (players and DM have different expectations of what the campaign is) can be voidable; that misrepresentations by one party (a DM not communicating the campaign idea well) can justify the other party (the players) walking away from the contract. And, of course, that anyone applying contracts to a social interaction like D&D is probably misunderstanding both how D&D operates and how contract law works.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of a player. It does sound cool as a concept, and as a player, I go back to becmi, so characters dying is no big deal for me.
But then when it comes to the actual play of it, I could see myself starting to think “why am I here.” I already know how the story is going to end, and it’s going to end with my failure, so what’s the point of playing this through?
One of the reasons to play D&D is the hero fantasy. Being the only person (well, party) in the right place with the right knowledge to save the world. Or at least save the village. Knowing that I’m doomed to failure no matter what I do, then why do anything?
And I realize you’re trying to make it clear up front that’s the concept. But what people think they will like, and what they actually like don’t always match.
Are you able to mix the games up in terms of types of events? Actions and reactions of NPCs to and around the players? Other world or local events that effect the players and their approach to the final goals? Is there significantly more than just the relentless onslaught of the bug people?
You may be doing a much better job at this than I would, but I think this sort of setting could quickly become very 'samey' for every session. Also, if the ultimate end result is failure, are you giving the characters ample opportunities to succeed in other areas? I think one of the common things people play for is the heroic aspect, and knowing that despite their skills, abilities and all their hard work they are doomed to failure would quickly lead to boredom, frustration and/or hopelessness on the part of the characters. Saving a bunch of (I'm guessing) vague, nameless NPCs probably isn't enough to keep most players engaged. I personally wouldn't find that particularly rewarding.
As a last thought, I wouldn't be surprised if many people who are willing to sign up for this thinking they might enjoy it realize after they start playing that the over all experience isn't going to be satisfying for them.
All game styles have learning curves and play by post is not for everyone so I would run a few sessions where players can make mistakes and have them not have any impact on their PC's. Also in todays environment (fast pace, video games, etc) a slow play by post game may have fewer people interested and people may not stick with it for a long period of time. ie I would much rather play Elden Ring for 30 min then read 30 min of material and then post my action(s).
Also how you enact the drama is huge in such a game and not being face to face in probable hindering what you are trying to do.
I have also seen an issue in the past with an author using this method to work out ideas for his book and when players suspected and found out out it they were really put off.
Good Luck
For me, I role play to role play. Whatever the situation - traps, puzzles, fights etc. I want to real time interact with people and bounce ideas back and forth etc. What I don’t want to do is write a couple of lines of text and then have to wait 3 days for someone to reply or the dm to say “your attack missed”. That’s mind numbing for me. Some people are okay with it and that’s great but not me.
I had a similar experience. I was staying with friends and we wanted to game, but we only had time for a few sessions, so I hit on what I thought was a great idea... I tried to do the non-ending ending. The bad guys have escaped, but our heroes know where they're going. Will they affect a rescue? Stay tuned for next time... Except that's not how it worked out. We got to the final encounter, but the players became more and more frantic as I tried to make clear this was a non-ending. Eventually we called the session because emotions were running high and tempers were flaring. It got me wondering if table top RPGs are just bad when you're not telling the one story of the PCs inevitable rise to fame and power... It should be possible to tell these kinds of stories. TV, manga, and movies are replete with story arcs that test characters mettle by means of no-win scenarios. Sometimes those are people's favorite stories. Shouldn't that translate into storytelling games?