Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: 42 on November 18, 2005, 09:53:14 PM
-
So I had an idea today.
What would it be like to play in a campaingn that had a very limited topographic area? No traveling around the entire world, or going to other planes.
Just staying in one place. Like a castle or small town.
I kind of ran a campaign this way, though it was a short lived one. I don't think that it went over too well, largely because I was new to DMing.
Has anyone played in a campaign where the entire course of the campaign remained localized?
What were the pros and cons?
-
In our Hackmaster campaign we spent a year of actual play time in Little Keep on the Borderlands. It was fantastic. The module is an update to the classic Keep on the Borderlands and gives the PCs plenty to do.
The area defined is about 50 square miles, I think, with the Keep itself being the only village. We could have spent another year there, easy, and still not done everything there was to do.
Keeping local can be marvelously fun as long as there is a lot of variety.
-
Every Vampire game I ever played was focused on a city, usually DC and it was a lot of fun. I also did a Lhankmar game in the past too... and Superhero games are fun in one city. And the best Warhammer game I ever played was set in a small city where the PC's were super concerned with being respectable.
The pluses of localized area are innumerable, it allows PCs to develop contacts, put down roots, invest in the community and become something. Plus their actions can matter more. Say in a D&D game they step in and help a baker who's being jumped by some thugs, well one result could be that the lower classes treat them like royalty, allowing them to eat free, or drink free. Another could be the head of a criminal organization puts them down in the dead book, especially since they were in collusion with the Dukes evil brother to break the support that the Burghers feel for the Duke himself (after all if the Duke cant protect them maybe his brother can). Or maybe the baker is a blowhard and an idiot and the townsfolk dont like him. Maybe he's a greedy jerk who sold the thugs bad bread and he was going to get what was coming to him till your meddling characters got in the way. Maybe now people expect them to stick their noses in where they dont belong.
And thats just the result of one minor fight.
The success of a localized game depends on the preparation you do as a GM and the amount of time you spend developing a supporting cast. Its harder too in some ways, because your players will expect you to be consistant.
This is why you should do a paragraph bio on anyone who's a major player in the area. I find relationship webs to be really useful for something like this. Take a dozen of so characters you plan to use for a story and note how they feel about each other, and how they relate.
For instance take the baker above
Write down his name on a sheet of paper and draw a line between him and his daughter choose a color to represent an emotion, love, dissapointment, etc...
Now give her a lover, or suitor who he doesnt approve of and one who he does approve of (she's pretty)
Put their names down too.
How does she feel about them, choose more colors and diagram her emotions. If you make the lines arrows you can have one person feel one way and another feel well another.
A quick sheet can create a saga of playing potential.
The baker has a daughter whos very pretty, and she's being courted by two men. One, the son of a farmer on the outskirts of town is well liked by the baker (he has a little money and she stands to gain some land) the Baker loves his daughter, but she's a little annoyed with him. The daughters other suitor is the local Brewers apprentice. She likes him a lot, but her father thinks he's shiftless and lazy. His friends are louts and the father decides to show his disdain by adding filler like ground straw to the bread they buy daily.
When they find out, they decide to teach the Baker a lesson. The PC's turn up right as they start beating him.
So now you have a story, but its easier to hold it together in a small local because you have an idea about how everyone will act. Now you can plan the reactions of the characters around their personal results.
Inserting the PC's into that mix is now really fun.
Now imagine adding an outside influence, a local officail visits with his retinue, an orc raiding party is spotted and the PC's need to try and defend the town. The local priest comes to them to ask their advice about a haunting in the local chapel. Or what if people the PC's care about end up dead for no reason.
-
the cons,
Ever just been around the same people too much? Its easy for the big powerful PC's to get tired of hanging out with the proles and get a hankering for a real challange, or some treasure. A limited environment offers a lot of roleplaying opportunities, fewer challanges. You have to scale the campaign accordingly. After all how many Bakers do you know with a Belt of Giants strength?
This cuts some of the coolness factor, which can be mitigated slightly by allowing side quests or adventures, Diablo style. If the heros are lords of the town (most likely they start out working for the lord) they may have to go clear out the old road, thats become infested by monsters, or investigate a hidden crypt that a farmer finds while clearing out a new field. Like I said in the previous post you have to finesse it.
Think of it like the Robin Hood legend. It takes place mainly in Yorkshire Lincoln, Barnsdale and Nottigham with Nottingham exisiting as the defacto county seat. The heros operate out of Sherwood forest a limited geographic area (especially given Britains size) and can have a relationship with a couple of small villages and their enemy the Sheriff. The area is just big enough to do whatever you want, and just small enough that your not changing the world (unless you send them off to the Crusades)
-
I think you still get "new areas" as you uncover new groups, guilds, secret areas, etc. The main thing is the PCs really do end up hanging out at their favorite bar, are buddies with some shopkeeper where they buy everything, etc. Lots of contacts and such. Anything could get boring if done too long... high level chars, low-level chars, undead chars, evil chars, all rogue chars, new Plane every session, etc.
-
My favorite campaign ever was a single location campaign actually, held in one city (ok, so I left the city once when I got kidnapped but I blame one of the other PCs for that, not the GM) . I think they can work really well if you drive the plot forward with character interaction, intrigue, local events, etc. rather than by having a changing landscape and the goal of the campaign to get cool stuff. It was nice to be able to get to know a single place really well actually. Our was a political intrigue campaign so there was only minimal combat too, which makes it a bit unusual. Of course, with this type of campaign you do run the risk of having a female player fall in love with the bad guy, betraying the rest of the PCs, and taking over the city... ::)
-
and whats wrong with that... especially if the bad guy offers dental.
-
So I'm thinking a little smaller, like the entire campaign being in an abbey or a castle or a mansion. Can anyone see that working?
-
For D&D? Sure, it wont be a massively long campaign though. You can make it longer with detail. Oh and read Gormenghast the Fantasy novel by Mervin Peake that takes place in one castle and thats it...
-
Novels are not good inspirations for RPG plots, since in them the characters never decide to do something totally random 'to make the author squirm'.
And I don't think you could pull that off effectively 42. You'd have trouble justifying why so many events take place in such a small area - the same problem that Soap Operas have.
-
So I'm thinking a little smaller, like the entire campaign being in an abbey or a castle or a mansion. Can anyone see that working?
It would be extremely tough for anything more than a few sessions. Players thrive on exploring and manipulatng the game environment. A setting that small may not be able to keep their attention for too long.
-
So the answer is no.
-
I'd say it is possible. However, it'll depend heavily on how good of a GM you are since it would be up to you to keep the plot moving and the players interested. As for justification of why events are occuring in that one small area, you could have the campaign's events a small part of a larger picture, a castle under seige, a monostary in quarantine, etc. The possibilities are there if you can manage to pull it off.
-
ditto and you could kill them all during a huge masque where the decadent turn a blind eye to the suffering of the diseased masses outside the walls. All the time stalked by death... wearing a red mask
-
I'd say it is possible. However, it'll depend heavily on how good of a GM you are since it would be up to you to keep the plot moving and the players interested. As for justification of why events are occuring in that one small area, you could have the campaign's events a small part of a larger picture, a castle under seige, a monostary in quarantine, etc. The possibilities are there if you can manage to pull it off.
A castle during a siege could be quite fun No shortage of adventure there.
-
It also happens to be a massive fantasy cliche :P I've yet to read a single series where there wasn't at least one siege where the heroes defended. Be nice to see the heroes conducting a siege of their own for once.
-
But its one of the few massive fantasy cliches that does not make the jump to gaming very often.
Its very underused...usually for lack of a good mass combat ruleset.
-
Actually I think the main problem with RPing a siege is that A) It's hard for characters to exert much personal effect and B) Sieges are 9 parts dull waiting, 1 part frenzied assault. Hard to get the balance right, I suspect.
-
the biggest problem with it being IN one single castle is. "why the heck don't we just leave this stupid place?" A city is one thing, but one structure? way too boring. I think it's possible that there are GMs who could pull off a 4 or 5 session campaign in one castle, but it still wouldn't be among the best campaigns.
-
Well, it would lose some of the epic-ness being set in one place. But then, what makes something epic?
The only thing that I can think of that comes close to what I'm thinking of is Undermountain. In theory, you could run an entire campaign in Undermountain.
I think there are lots of possible reasons why a characters wouldn't leave. They either can't leave, or all of their objectives need to be accomplished in one place, or probably both.
The only thing that really appeals to me in a strongly localized campaing, is the amount of depth you could have. Something that world-traveling often lacks.
The castle siege idea actually has some merit. Just don't deal with mass combat, because it is boring and not very RPGish. Dealing with the small encounter that happen during a siege is more interesting and easier to roleplay. Throw in things like traitors, spies, secret rooms, divine visitations, dimensional rifts, time-travel, and the like...
-
A campaign all in Undermountain would be fun I think. Like your carrier is just dungeon delving into Undermountain or similiar massive dungeon in search of fame and fortune. Reminds me of RPGs like Hack, Moraf's Revenge, and those other weird 80s crpgs. You still get new areas as you go down deeper and deeper, or if it is all in a city like uncovering a new low-profile guild or checking out the city sewers for the first time, stuff like that. Castle Greyhawk is sorta like that too, you could just keep adventuring down in the dungeons forever.
-
I suppose you could do something like The Prisoner, but even that show took place on an entire island, something much more city sized than a single castle size. Still, it sounds like you're talking about a pretty massive castle, instead of the ones I've actually seen, so possibly. But what reasons *can't* they leave, other than they're in a cell or it's under seige. The former is far too restrictive unless there's a massive complex of cells in the dungeon, so they just throw the prisoners in and lock the main door. The latter doesn't necessarily inhibit leaving. After all, one of the great plot points of a seige is smuggling the messenger beyond the lines -- who better to be that messenger than the PCs? If their objectives are all in the same place, it sounds a bit too much like railroading the adventurers. They can't decide an objective is not one they want to meet and instead they want to go court the comely wench in town? Or perhaps get supplies not available there in the castle? So, yeah, even if you dreamed up a really solid reason to make there NO WAY to leave the castle, I think your players will itch to leave anyway.
-
It'll feel a lot like a computer game - 'you have left the map boundries' if you absolutely stop people from leaving.
It's common for ships and spaceships to be their own adventure locations, but there it's something the players are constantly coming and going from, rather than the only location. So your players could come to know that ship really well, and if it's sufficiently big you could have adventures on it, but they will want to get off it from time to time.
This is the problem Deep Space 9 had. The first season was mostly on the station, and from the second season onwards they spent much less time on the station. There is just only so much you can realistically do in one location.
-
I think you're assuming too much to say that the stuff outside the castle is inherently more interesting than the stuff inside the castle. You don't have to restrict them, you just put all the cool stuff in the castle itself and make sure that the characters are appropriate to the campaign: barbarians and rangers would hate being cooped up in a castle, but court nobles would have no compelling reason to leave. If the adventure is about princes and courtesans and interpolitical intrigue, and all of the resources and contacts and villains are right there, I don't see why you'd want to go anywhere else.
-
I don't think you've taken into account the amount of restriction. If everything in the campaign happened in one day, yeah, they'd have no reason. But we're talking about remaining in one building. Not even court intrigue typically takes place in one castle. They visit other courts, they go ride their horses, look at their lands, et al.
I don't think it was said that the stuff outside was "inherantly more interesting" than the stuff inside. Just that in an extended campaign, there will be many many reasons to need to leave the single building, and not allowing that is contrived, forced, and I would imagine irritating.
-
And players usually love to indulge wanderlust in their characters.
-
But the trick for running a single-location campaign isn't to "not allow" the characters to go out, but to make them not want to go out.
My snotty, politically coniving courtier is not going to want to go outside. There are peasants out there! Heaven forbid one of them has any contact with her. Horses smell, and servants are there to take care of her lands. I don't think she's seen them in a couple years at the very least, and anyone worthwhile to know will come visit her right where she is. The only thing that would inspire her to leave the comforts of her palace would be a royal summons.
Get the idea? As long as the characters are right for the campaign, it can work. If you're the GM, just watch your players carefully during character creation. If it isn't in the character's personality or nature to wander off, why would they?
-
But you forget one of the first laws of GMing...
As soon as you discourage the characters from doing something, however gently, at least one of them will do it regardless.
-
You're one of those softie GMs who gives in whenever your players whine aren't you? hehe. You're forgetting the First absolute rule of GMing: You are God. You can literally do a "rock falls, everybody dies" if you wish! Of course, your players may actually hate you after that one. hehe. I'd personally try "subtle" when directing their character creation. If you're good enough they never even realize it...
-
You're new.
I get that.
So I won't have to ask SE to send his Ninja Monkies for insinuating I'm locked into a particular GMing style and not aware of other methods.
You want my creds? Go back and read "The Nerdery" columns I wrote, back when I had time to devote to such things.
Smacktalked by a guy named "Vaj." What have the forums come to?
;D
-
Vaj is a girl.
-
Assume all my references above to be gender-neutral then.
That doesn't excuse the tasteless name choice, even if it is gener-appropriate.
-
Define assume.
Besides, I never said anything about her name and your condemnation of it (until just now ;)).
-
DMG 2 talks a bit about this. The theory is if you indulge the character quirk then the player will get their fill and stop doing it so much. So like if you have a rogue who always is stealing from the party, it is most likely because they have very good pick pocket skills and never get to use them. If you throw in some situation where they finally get to use it (in a nonharmful way to the party), then they would stop stealing from the group. Or like if there is someone playing an 'outcast' and it is messing up the party, if you throw in some NPC who tries getting that PC involved in stuff, maybe even it an annoying degree. Then the PC can snub the NPC and will get along better with the party, as he kind of already got his fill of outcast rping from the NPC.
-
I prefer to let my players create characters who are mostly within the campaign boundaries and then just go with the flow. One player used the spirit shaman from Complete Divine in a Eberron game. So i'll just have to put in some spirits and stuff - may not be in the setting, but if it makes the player happy and doesn't slow down the game or interfere with everyone else, whats the problem?
And of course, if you build the game around the players, it helps them feel like they are the centre of the campaign, rather than being the party that doesn't quite fit what the GM is trying to do. Like a rogue character in a game with no traps - he's gonna be desperately bored over it.
-
I agree that if there is a compelling reason not to leave, then of course there will be at least one player who will want to leave.
Even if you blatently state that there is no treasure or experience points to be gained outside of this castle/dungeon/spaceship/small village, there will always be one person who thinks that there might be and wants to check it out.
I agree that it is better to build campaigns around characters. There are some problems I've encountered. The first is the party that has a bunch of cool characters individually, but there is no way to make them work together. "Your vampiric necromancer dragon is really cool, but not likely to travel with Kathy's celestial paladin dragon slayer who eminates an aura that destroys all undead within a mile."
Closely following this is the one player who suddenly loses interest in their own character when they see how similar or cooler another character that is in the group. Nerd Player A: "I can start diplomatic relations. My guy is good at that." Nerd Player B: "No. My guy is twice as good at negotiation as your guy. Why don't you just wait to bash these monsters when they enventually turn evil." Nerd Player C: "Hey that's what my charcter plans to do." Nerd Player A: "Fine, I'll just do nothing (again)."
Then there are the groups where suddenly all the charcters are remarkably similar, just with different names, so they end up competing violently to do all the same stuff. Nerd Player J: "I bash the monster for X-gazilion damage." GM: "The monster is completely inviscerated."' Nerd Players K, L, and M: "Hey that's what my character was going to do, you jerk."
42 wonders how many Nerdery Collumns could be written about stuff mentioned in this thread.
-
42 wonders how many Nerdery Collumns could be written about stuff mentioned in this thread.
Several.
Assuming that Sprig or myself actually had time to write them.
-
Or someone took over for them.
-
Or that.
-
That doesn't excuse the tasteless name choice, even if it is gener-appropriate.
For the general future reference of all, the nick "Vaj" comes from "Vajrayana" which was a character I started writing six years ago and I've been using the nick on forums ever since. Coincidently (and accidently) it's also a form of Buddhism. Any misinterpretations are completely from your own mind.
-
No doubt as my mind is a terrible place.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but it is the internet and worse things have been known to happen.
Good thing you didn't jump onto a larger or less wholesome board with that name...
-
I'm missing what makes the nickname so bad.
-
There's nothing wrong with my name! The only reason I know what Mr. P is referring to is because a guy on one of those "less wholesome" boards explained it to me one evening. He was the first of now three to look at it that way. Anyways, if we could please get back to the topic at hand?
So far the only major issue in running a single location campaign seems to be that the players would want to ruin the GM's fun of staying in one place, bringing us to different types of players rather than types of GMs. It would take the correct type of players to make it work as well. The group whose motto is "kill things, take their stuff, gain XP for the sake of XP" ;) no matter what campaign they're in is not going to want to stay in the box. My home group is more of the "solve the problem and if we kill stuff great" type group. Single location campaigns work fine for us as long as there's something for us to do.
-
To defend my honor and explain why others read your nick as a bit crude let me explain two things.
1) In this part of the midwest, in my generation, your nickname is the most common crude term used to refer to female genetalia. Even more-so than the movie popularized version which stems from the nickname for cats.
2) People on the internet are crude and I've seen many a forum name that tries to get around decency filters by using lesser-known terms or spellings of crude things. Thus, its not a huge leap to read your name as I did. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened here.
But I was wrong and I apologize. But my mind isn't in the gutter here, anyone who grew up around St. Louis is going to think the same thing when they see your nickname. It's just part of the unsavory dialect of this region.
And, no, we can't get back on topic. This is TWG after all. ;D
-
And, no, we can't get back on topic. This is TWG after all. ;D
Amen to that! :D
-
I think getting back onto topic, once we've left it, is at once impossible and probably outlawed by several international treaties.
-
I must have missed that section of the treaties in my civilizations class... hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have read novels through all the lectures. :P