Let me set up the current situation in my Forgotten Realms Campaign. The group is currently based in the Silver Marches area and near Silverymoon specifically. To those not up on FR geography, the group is in a relative frontier area that contains a loose confederation of city-states led by the great city of Silverymoon. A large horde of orcs and frost giants has come pouring out of the mountains to the north and are threatening the area. They are going to be marching on Silverymoon with a huge battle for the great city as the climax.

Here's what I'm looking at doing. I want a series of missions that the characters can go on while the orc horde approaches. I'd like there to be more missions than time to do them all, say 5 missions with on time to do 3 before the big battle at the end. The Players get to choose which ones they do. I'd like the success or failure of the mission to impact the actual tactical situation of the final big battle so that the Players can see how their character's actions actually helped or hurt them in the end.

Here's my problem. I'm running into a writer's block of sorts. I can't think of anything that isn't painfully cliche. Could some of you really talented designers toss me an idea or two in broad strokes? I'm pretty certain I could fill in the details to a cool adventure if I could just get my head to generate a few interesting goals for the Players to go after.

Thanks.

Hi Andrew,

Why don't you ask for something easy, like fetching a moon rock?

C'mon, man -

I want a series of missions that the characters can go on while the orc horde approaches.

Here's my problem. I'm running into a writer's block of sorts. I can't think of anything that isn't painfully cliche.

Ooooooh... can you get me a moon rock?

Excellent suggestion Ron! That's what I'm going to do. Screw the series of missions. I'll let them come up with them. I knew I just needed someone with new eyes to look at the situation. Thanks!

The following are some core themes of military adventure. Each can be varied greatly, so you could practically build your five adventures all from just one category. Of course, I don't claim that they're all usable for D&D; to the contrary, I think that it's wisest to stick to skirmishes, where the system works best.

Diplomacy: The alliance of the free peoples needs free people X to join in opposing the dark lord. Dark version: the players are required to figure out and execute a tit-for-tat agreement wherein people X benefit greatly from laying down for the alliance, without distancing existing allies. Heroic version: the players have to prove to the misguided but valiant people X that the alliance is a force for good, because X has been misled to unjust wars in times past.
Examples:
- A tribe of barbarians could sway to either side. Emissaries of both armies have to fete, fight and fuck with the best of them to gain their favor.
- Petty lord X controls a crucial passage to the rear of the enemy. He is greatly disliked among the alliance, so after agreeing to his awarious demands the players have to convince their allies to agree, too, or take the blame for X switching sides.
- A faction among the free peoples have managed a reasonable diplomatical connection with the enemy, perhaps with the help of ancestral magic. Danger: they defect. Opportunity: peace negotiations. What will the players do?

Commando: like military fantasy/scifi, the players have to execute some near-impossible military objectives using wit and courage. Success is only possible through grafting their unit of committed fighters into a band of brothers intent to succeed. Lots of worship for the commander, too.
Examples:
- Three hundred men. A chain of watchposts and old fortresses. A delay mission with ample hit-and-run fighting, ingenious traps for the enemy, and ludicrous fatalities to the forces of darkness. Each man will be a legend when they return.
- After the surprise strike by the enemy, gather the old minutemen of Lake Garda from their dispersion and execute a succesful strike for the city of Garda, fallen to the enemy. Occupy and hold the city until reinforcements arrive.
- The supplies for the army are stuck in the fall weather a hundred leagues to the south. Go fetch it. Except, enemy loyalists have detained the supply train in the guise of a peasant rebellion, planning to turn the elven armaments over to the enemy.

Personal: intently fighting the war, the heroes have to also address pressures among their comrades and within themselves. Worst case has a crucial person starting to make fatal mistakes when the stress and personal issues are left undealt. But will the commander dare to postpone the strategic objectives just to console one person?
Examples:
- The Old General is loved greatly among the troops, but his notions of strategy are fatally old-moded. Through a series of routine and less-than routine events, can the advisors open his eyes, or is a coup the only option?
- Your loved ones are held hostage by the enemy, and getting to them is just a reasonable delay for the war. But to do that, you have to convince your companions of the necessity, or sacrifice the cause and try to save them yourself. Or perhaps buckle under the demands of the enemy and turn traitor.
- Several key petty officers and even some officers of the troop are riddled by moral corruption, preferring to steal from the populace and gamble among themselves, rather than being satisfied with their part in the governmental machinery. The troops are being affected by the laxness, and if the commanding officer does nothing, the military virtue might be affected, as well.

Spying: personal action is some times the only recourse. The common denominator of this class of mission is that each presents a large situation moved through the judicious application of a small hostile force. Like a large rock set in equilibrium will fall from the slightest push. Your average "go do this quest and everything will be all right" in other words. Gets more interesting if the player gets to narrate a) what needs to be done and b) what are the macro-level effects.
Examples:
- Assassination or spying mission deep behind the enemy lines. Get the McGuffin or kill the enemy key personage or mess with their machinery otherwise, and you slow them or negate their surprise weapons or whatever. Primary hazard: enemy action
- Get the magic artifact, or awaken the ancient ally, or do something else that requires travelling through hazards on a quest. Gain as a reward something with enough mojo to affect the war. Primary hazard: neutral and coincidental forces.
- Act politically and strategically to push the alliance towards intelligent, decisive courses of action. Forces of complacency and fear act in the populace, and the small minds leading the alliance are in danger of buckling under the pressure if a heroic figure does not step forth in the right moment to address their fears.

Is that the kind of advice you're looking for?

Incidentally, wouldn't it be easiest to brainstorm this kind of stuff with the players? Put a map of the war on the table, tell them what their characters know, and let them figure out themselves which goals are important and how they'll go about securing them. Alternatively, tell them to act for the generals of the army if the characters are for some reason not in a position to decide for themselves. This way you'll ensure that any generated missions are interesting for the players.

Heh, I prepared my message too long and Ron beat me to the punch. Cruel.

Despite agreeing with Ron 100% as far as my own play preference goes, isn't it somewhat radical to suddenly switch from a mission-based frame of mind to strategic level challenge? Unless your players are already prepared for that, and it was really just a blind spot making you prepare ready-made missions.

It seems to me that missions are the bread and butter of D&D. I'm surprised that you're so ready to drop that and change the game so fundamentally on the drop of the hat. Good for you.

Eero,

Thanks for the very considered reply. Actually, your last suggestion coupled with Ron's looks like a very workable solution. Let the players play the Generals on one level and the party on the other. Make the situation really, really bad and then let them come up with solutions. Then as the party they get to play out parts of the solution. Nifty. I like it.

I have somewhat similar worries. If I were in this sort of situation, and I have been, its probable that one of my aims is to not bring the climax on too soon. I'm looking for padding, really. And I would fear that in the absence of some planning, nothing I improvise will be grabby and developed enough to maintain interest, and therefore we will race toward the climax by default.

Cliche is, to some extent, unavoidable. After all, the situation in which the characters find themselves is a cliche itself, no? I find that the way to combat this is not to try to come up with responses that are not cliche - go ahead and do the cliche things. Just make them specifically pertinent to the characters at hand. As long as that's the case, as long as the cliche is flavored to the PCs, you'll do fine.

For example, using Ron's idea, let's say that the players decide to take Eero's first plan, and want to go and garner some support from the elves. How cliche, no? But go with it. What you do is once they get to the elves, have the elves want some condition that one or more of the PCs find nigh intollerable. Then the question for the players is, do the characters allow their own personal foibles to get in the way of helping the larger community, or do they put their own concerns aside given the greater danger.

Even this part of the situation is a cliche. But it doesn't matter. Just the fact that you've tailored the situation to take into account the player's characters, and that they get to play out the characters tough decision is plenty enough to make for fun play. So don't make it just another trip to the elves to get support to stop the orcs, make it Characters X, Y and Z special trip to the elves to get support.

In short, don't worry about making the situation unique from every other one, just make it unique by making it relate to the PCs somehow.

Mike

A few questions:

Is the final battle a Campaign Ending Final Episode?
What are the Forces of Evil actually trying to achieve?
What level are the party?
How do you intend to 'calculate' the effect of the characters' missions?

Mike,

You're right again. You've said that about cliche to me before. I just seem to forget it from time to time. Actually.... I think it might have been Ron who said it last time and you backed him up on it. Whatever. The point is taken.

Contracycle,

You've echoed some of my worries. Without some plan of action I tend to skip the build up and get to the climax too soon. While that's fine on a scene by scene basis, it can be detrimental on a larger scale when there isn't enough tension built before the big bang.

NN,

Let me see if I can answer your questions.

I think the final battle is the end of *this* story. We may continue to use the characters at some point. If the players want, I may continue the game by letting the heros reap the benefits of they're labors (if they survive and are successful). Otherwise, it could be a rebuilding civilization story afterwards. Or we might just end the campaign and let it go.

The orc leader, King Obould Many-Arrows, wants to establish an orc nation. He's actually an intelligent foe with vision for the future.

The party is around 4 to 5 EL at the moment.

I had planned on simply saying things like...

"Success in this mission means this enemy isn't around at the final battle."

or

"Success here means the elves pitch in to help."

Gaerik:
Have you considered troupe style play, a la Ars Magica? The circumstances here would be ideal for it. Each individual main character goes off on a mission tha showcases their particular talents, with other players using temporary pcs. It allows several different concurrent missions, any of which might yield rewards.

Also, how would you feel if the players manage to thwart this invasion before your percieved climax? Maybe it's the old grognard in me, but your set up got me thinking about ways that even relatively low level characters could potentially win this scenario, very few of them involving direct personal combat. Are you prepared to let your players get away with that, or is it very important that the final big fight occur?

Damn, I wish I was involved!

Best o' luck,
Robert

In the old Thieves' Guild series, #5 contained an adventure called "The Radisha Must Die!" where the orc tribes are being united by a strong leader and the players must disguise themselves as orcs and go assassinate him. It might be an interesting source for you and the whole 'disguise as orcs' shtick is kind of fun.

I too think it's better to say "there's this massive horde of orcs, what do you want to do?" but of course you should know a lot of things about the orcs and the areas they're passing through en route to your area so when the players try to scheme their comeuppance they'll have things they can use to do so.

Here's how I'd approach a situation like this, keeping in mind that I agree with Ron's take on things.

I'd play off of the relationships the player characters have been forming with the townsfolk. If there are other characters the PCs have become involved with, I'd consider entangling them in the whole mess, as well, if they're nearby but not yet involved. My thought here is that while a siege of orcs is obviously cliche, what makes it interesting is getting buy-in -- if there are interesting, nuanced people that are potentially going to get mowed down, then that's the story, and "orcs invade" is just the impetus for that story.

Take the Helm's Deep bit from the Lord of the Rings movies. You've got a king who's struggling to be the leader his people need, while dealing with the loss of his son (something that's inextricably tied up in his failures). You've got Eowyn dealing with her internal conflict; she's finally found a man who understands her (Aragorn), but he's both already taken, and he very well may die in the coming fight. You've got Gimli and Legolas continuing to bond through rivalry, in a "buddy cop movie" way. You've got thirteen year old boys putting on armor that dwarfs them. All these things make the siege more than a cool special effects setpiece.

I play these types of situations strongly along the "How far will you go to do what must be done?" premise. Every person you recruit to help fight is someone who will probably fall. If you convince them to flee instead, they may be safe, but at the cost of making the odds even worse. Combine that situation with some NPCs with their own motivations and relationships to each other and the PCs, and the game will flow.

I'd suggest searching around this site for discussions of the Bang and Relationship Map techniques. You can do a great deal of preparation without creating "sub-quests" at all. Come up with several complications that must be dealt with, a half-dozen NPCs with conflicting goals, and ideas on how they interact with each other and the PCs, and you'll find you've done quite a bit of prep. Difficult prep, actually -- I find it harder than coming up with several adventures. But I find that writer's block isn't a problem with this type of preparation, possibly because there's no need to come up with resolutions -- just complications. Trust us, the players will come up with their own resolutions, ones that will often surprise you.

Gaerik

I was going to argue against all-or-nothing climactic battles - but it seems you are happy to end the campaign.

If the orc-king is a prudent foe, wouldnt he abandon the big attack if too many things go wrong?

How will you translate the mission successes into battlefield advantage?
I mean, how will you decide that "Very successfully got elven aid"+"Successful assasination of giant leader" + "dismal failiure to distract dragon" = Orcish Defeat (as opposed to "moderate success with elves + ...." = Orcish Victory)

Sorry..more questions than answers


nick


nick

NN,

That's a good question. Here's my take on how to run these types of things.

The important thing to remember is that the battle itself is not the focal point. The focal point is whatever part of the battle the PCs are in. The PCs battle (in my mind) is representative of the bigger one. If the PCs win then so does their side. If they lose then so does their side. If they fight it to a draw... you get the idea.

At that point how to represent them winning and losing the missions along the way gets fairly simple. They got the elves to agree to help? Then there are a few elven arcane archer NPCs in their battle on their side. Killed the Giant King? Then he isn't there or maybe no giants are there at all. Fail to distract the Dragon? There he is on the PCs battlefield. Successfully raided the supply lines? Orcs are at -1 Strength, Dexerity and Constitution.

That answer the question?

Hi Ron,

I read your suggestion and I think "Perfect, why didn't I think of that?"

In fact it really bugs me. Why didn't I think of that? In fact only recently have I even thought of something vaguely resembling a massive, driving issue/stake. I think in the past I actually drifted away from such a thing, for a very old reason.

It's the "The driving stake is 'can you survive this ordeal' Vs play must continue for everyone" paradox.

I think you've noted it yourself, how, like the gang from gilligans isle, once they get off the island the show ends. Here, the stake is PC survival, but when a PC dies, play ends for it's player.

Since play must go on (or atleast if it's agreed it should), it ends up that PC death is fudged away or challenges are very, very, very carefully designed (which causes the writers block Gaerik has with mapping out missions). Sometimes so carefully, it becomes illusionism.

I like your idea that the situation is really hopeless and that they will die like dogs if they don't come up with a solution. But I'm thinking if anything will take them down the road of dieing like dogs, the above paradox will kick in. The deadlyness will be muted and the players will notice it's muted and realise there really is no pressing need to instigate much at all.

What do you think?

Hi Callan,

The key to me seems to be found by combining two things.

1. This is to be a four-hour convention scenario. That means, (a) "stopping play" for a given person is no big deal, it's not like you're killing his participation out of a four-year campaign or something; and (b) characters living or dying does not carry the kind of ego-death that many associate with D&D characters dying.

2. Make the whole scenario absolutely chock-full of colorful details. The horde should be interesting, the city or keep or whatever should be interesting, the NPCs should be interesting, etc ... but none of them are the key. The players should not be investigating them in a Call of Cthulhu sense to find the "hidden solution." They have to invent a combination of the existing details (or their implications, very much in terms of your comments about vases falling off balconies) in a way which only has to be entertaining from the GM's perspective in order to work.

With both of these in mind, and with both of them being absolutely explicit, participation in this scenario will be fun no matter what happens, as long as you dive into it. The only way not to have fun is to remove oneself from the social and creative task at hand, which is to say, to interject some other (fucked-up) priority for play like "survive by turtling."

Oh yes, and add one more thing - that a player whose character dies is expected to continue to participate through kibitzing, both to GM and to other players. That needs to be explicit too.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. This is to be a four-hour convention scenario. That means, (a) "stopping play" for a given person is no big deal, it's not like you're killing his participation out of a four-year campaign or something; and (b) characters living or dying does not carry the kind of ego-death that many associate with D&D characters dying.

2. Make the whole scenario absolutely chock-full of colorful details. The horde should be interesting, the city or keep or whatever should be interesting, the NPCs should be interesting, etc ... but none of them are the key.

The players should not be investigating them in a Call of Cthulhu sense to find the "hidden solution." They have to invent a combination of the existing details (or their implications, very much in terms of your comments about vases falling off balconies) in a way which only has to be entertaining from the GM's perspective in order to work.

Noon wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. This is to be a four-hour convention scenario. That means, (a) "stopping play" for a given person is no big deal, it's not like you're killing his participation out of a four-year campaign or something; and (b) characters living or dying does not carry the kind of ego-death that many associate with D&D characters dying.

Ooops, I forgot it was for a convention.

But it is hard to think ahead like that as a GM...you think your there to bring something interesting to the table. If you don't, you feel naked. However, if you just bring a bunch of interesting color details like you say, you are naked.

The funny thing is, I don't even want to write up dungeons in advance any more!

Too much temptation to make them make sense, and for the monsters to have worked out tactics...which ends up making approach X the one players ought to take.

That's all too much work for me now, and it leads to a stale game. That's another reason it's all a leap...rather than me designing it so it makes sense, instead in play use what makes sense to the players, to build it in play.

Harnessing player imagination instead of putting in hard yards yourself, isn't something I'd have thought of at age 14. Also, once you've played for years, the players start to expect the GM brings in the material, and they mute themselves. That's why newbies are often so wonderful as players, as will apply their imagination with gusto and thus write the game themselves.

Noon wrote: The funny thing is, I don't even want to write up dungeons in advance any more!

Too much temptation to make them make sense, and for the monsters to have worked out tactics...which ends up making approach X the one players ought to take.

I'm looking at this thread and thinking the right sort of stuff isn't so much information, as questions.

Ron puts it as interesting color. But what happens when you have interesting color then add a massively dire stake? Well all that color starts shouting out 'How can you exploit me to win? How, how, how!?'

How conflict and color come together makes an extra spark too, I think. If I just asked 'how are you going to beat the mindless undead armies?' it suggests there's a set answer hidden in the question. While if I say "A mindless undead army is attacking! They will destroy all you hold dear!" it's far different from you answering any question I pose. Rather than the answer being seemingly embedded in the question, there is no explicit question to hold any such answer. And thus the player must turn to their own mental resources to answer this rather than such a question. And that way we'll see the player invent something that's very unique to that player. Mmmm, interesting and useful...must apply soon!

Callan, I really don't think we're talking about two different things here. You're just saying it differently.

Mike

I didn't think I was saying anything different. :) Just getting into the nitty gritty a bit more, so in the heat of play I have more of a grasp of the techniques and they wont flit from my head. Especially the presentation of color and conflict, rather than directly asking anything (which implies the speaker has a set answer). I liked pinning that down a lot!