So You Want to Save the World

[luke]

Ok folks, I think every campaign that's been discussed so far has involved the players saving the world. For no particular reason. Let's brainstorm some good ideas for making "you must save the world!" campaigns work.

We all have these whacky ideas at one time or another, and we all know deep in our cold, black GM hearts that they don't really work on a practical level. But on the impractical side, the pay-off is huge!



From my own experience: Been running a game since about '94 with the same core three characters. We converted to BW in about 1999. Last sunday, the players learned what it's going to take to actually save the world. Each character will have to sacrifice himself. Pretty standard stuff, but fun.


I have three main players, Pete, Chris and Danny. We've survived scheduling problems, family crisis and out-right player to player hatred.


Like all young GMs, I kept my players in the dark about my intentions in the beginning. However, I think there were some key factors that let me pull off this nonsense. First when we made characters, Pete explicitly stated that he wanted his character to be a hero. "A hot-blooded hero!" Like Jet Li in Once Upon a Time in China. Ok, but I was going to make him fight for it.

Danny, pulled me aside and showed me the Monster Manual II. "I want to be a Cambion." Erm. No. How about a half demon? How about we develop your demonic side over time? He agreed and we roughly sketched out some of the powers he wanted in the future.

I never, not for one minute, forgot those priorities. Pete and Danny wanted them, I let them have them. In fact, I incorporated them into the campaign. I made them the campaign.

Chris is the problem child. To this day. Why? I see it now: His character concept was ass. He wanted to play a freak. A monster. Something different and alien for the sake of being different. That's it. Hard to drive a freak to save the world just on the merits of his freakness. We carved some good stories out of his freakness -- they lead to some excellent exploration in the "What am I?" Department, but when it came down to stepping up, he'd say, "No way, not me!" every time. There was no stake built into his character concept.


Campaign-wise, we started with the idea of just noodling around in some old AD&D modules: Lost Isle of Castanimir, Cult of the Reptile God, Sinister Secret of Salt Marsh, Bone Hill and Slavepits of the Undercity. There was no real impulse to start a 10 year game at that point. We were just exploring the characters and the world.

But as we played them out,my juices started flowing. Lost wizards, snake cults, smugglers, ancient evil, and slavers, oh my! This had the makings of something big. Brainstorm (in my head):The age was turning, the gods were warring, the characters would become their agents on earth! Hah!

One problem, how to let the players know this? I couldn't just tell them, right? That would ruin the surprise.

So what did I do? I tricked them, kidnapped them and sold them into slavery. This had a good and bad effect. The bad: It was complete railroad and drained the players of control and willingness to participate in future gambits. It was a dirty trick and not well-played on my part. It took years for me to rebuild the trust lost in that one incident. The good: It did, however, motivate them for revenge against the slavers.

Now, how did I get them to want to save the world? More railroading, of course! At this point, we had a fourth player. He played a priest. I used this priest's boss to tell the players, "YOU MUST DO THIS." That went over well, let me tell you. :roll:

The players went through with it, but there were so many instances of screaming matches, session-long arguments over rope and boats, that one has to wonder if there wasn't a better way.

So I forced them to the snake cult's big demon gate through which demons are a-pouring. Big fight! Rawr!

Two good things happened here. First, two demons escaped from the fight as a direct result of the players' actions. I was explicitly clear about this as it happened. Holy shit, suddenly they were responsible!

Second, God poked his ugly head through the gate and said to Danny, "Hey demon boy, how's it feel to be the Son of Fire?" We totally did the Darth Vader routine. Danny loved it. His history/buy-in was in full effect! Suddenly, Danny was tied to the world in a big way. Guess which player is the most vocal about saving the world when we play?

A little while later in the game, I had one of those demons show up. He told the players straight up, "I'm going to smash Heaven's Gate and destroy the world and it's all your fault. Oh, and Danny, you're my brother. Gimme a kiss."

So, so on the motivation side. They thought about it. But the further we got from that incident, the less they cared. Huh.

They weren't frothing at the mouth to save the world? But, but, but...

Wait, though. The more I let go of the reins, the more fun we had; the more of a stake they willingly took in what was happening in the game; the more complication and conflict they introduced. Even if they weren't saving the world, they were interested in their characters and their goals.

That's when it hit me: Fuck the world. This game is about these characters and what Danny, Pete and Chris want for these characters. If they don't want to save the world from the demon they unleashed, that's part of the god damned story! And it's cool.

There you have it. Confessions from a bad GM.

So let's brainstorm about Save the World plots. How do you build buy-in? What are some obstacles you've encountered? Why do you feel compelled to start StW plots?

-L

[Kublai]

I too have only bad GM stories from trying to save the world. It's a very easy thing to understand, but it's very hard to actually get the characters directly involved in the stakes. Of course, this was before my epiphany of letting the players create the story with me rather than me telling them what's happening.

I think the best way to start would be small and without even trying to start the Save the World storyline until the characters have caused the problem themselves. Just figure out one linchpin that holds the world together and then give the players the opportunity to explore that pin and decide if they want to pull that pin or allow someone else do it knowing full well the consequences. Either way, it's their fault through direct action or inaction. That would be enough to motivate them, I s'pose.

[Mickeroo]

I think you shoudl probably make sure that the characters are good natured enough to save the world in the first place. Maybe start by having them save a single person or a small group, maybe just from slavery or something. Also, to get them to bite, make it seem easy? Oh yeah, you just have to throw this ring into a volcano, no big deal.

The biggest obstacle I've encountered is keeping a game going long enough to actually save the world, but that's probably just a personal problem.

I want to start StW plots probably because it seems like sometihng everyone would want to do. I mean, if someone blows up the world, you lose. If an evil god takes it over, you lose. Sure charcaters don't have to want to do it, but I know that if I was in that situation I would.

I'd also like to say that this is really helping me. Answering other peoples questions seems to be easier than answering my own, even though the questions are sometimes the same. Thanks again.

[Thor Olavsrud]

I think you shoudl probably make sure that the characters are good natured enough to save the world in the first place.

First off, I want to say that just like Luke and Pete, I've been guilty of pushing players into the SAVE MY WORLD plot. The campaign almost always falls apart. I think one reason is due to a fallacy I see in Mike's quote above (not meant to pick on you Mike. I've certainly felt the same way in the past!)

See characters don't exist. And they don't matter. Not in the least.'

Sounds like heresy, right? But it's true. I couldn't give a flying fuck what some character wants. That character is a fictional construct. He doesn't want anything.

But the player! Ah, that's different! Players are real. They want stuff. They get interested in stuff (unlike characters, who only get interested in what players tell them to get interested in).

Forget about what the characters want. You need to aim your stuff at your players! This is why it's important to be friends with them, to socialize with them outside the game, to genuinely like them.

What Beliefs are....really are...is a construct for getting players to express what they desire out of a game through the lens of a character.

The first step in getting any game to work is to figure out what challenges and conflicts interest the players. Then give them that stuff colored in such a way that they can work their characters into it. If something interests a player, he'll find a way to involve his character.

[Redoid]

I want to start StW plots probably because it seems like sometihng everyone would want to do.


You're very good natured indeed. In the current group where I am a player, we are currently saving the world, by preventing an evil wizard to become a god. Out of 6 characters, only ONE wants to save the world. One is a priest of a god formerly eaten by said wizard, who thinks it will somehow help said god. Note that having the god simply appear and say: please go and kill Mr Evilwizard would have been railroading, here we had just one priest, inquiring, with all the other priests of his cult, why his prayers suddenly stopped to be heard, and discovered the dark fate of his god. And he decided to do something about it. A wizard in the group thinks it's actually a smart thing to eat gods to eat their power, and would like to eat the wizard. Another is simply following for the money, but could care less about this god, or even the end of the world, because, honestly, if the world was soon to end, the other gods would act, and not let the situation in the hands of schmucks like us, and so on.

The key for the campaing to work is to involve your characters. Nothing is worse than a character disconnected to the story. He'll start to get bored, will have the feeling of having less spotlight than the others, and won't have fun. And unfortunately, StW isn't important for the players, because it's not linked enough to their characters. It's a generic threat, not something that address the character they want to roleplay. Many people don't vote in real life because they don't feel concerned enough. If they knew the end was near, do you think they would all rise en masse to prevent it? No, they would be looting supermarkets. Look at Apocalypse-like movies for inspiration :) Seriously, if you want your group to save the world, have it become a character's collective decision. Don't try to say: you have an opportunity to save the world, hoping for everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

Well, maybe I am overly pessimistic, but that's my experience, both as GM and player. Esp. since, as player, the threat of "do this to save the world, because if you don't the world will collapse" smells as railroading, and generates much resistance.

I mean, if someone blows up the world, you lose. If an evil god takes it over, you lose. Sure charcaters don't have to want to do it, but I know that if I was in that situation I would.

I would be buying real estate, whose value would be dropping fast as the end of the world approach, because there will be some heroic guy like you who'll save the world in time. Don't worry, I'm a moral guy, you'll 0.0001% of the benefits :) Why couldn't characters do the same? Or spend their last days with their loved ones instead of adventuring? Look, for example, at the Dying Earth world. Nobody seems to be interested in actually doing something about the Sun being ill, and instead most people are behaving badly as if nothing was of importance. It's true, not everyone will act like that, but you can't count on your players (the real guys) wanting to be heroic all the time. Especially about abstract matters like "saving the world".

[Mickeroo]

I suppose I have a differnt philosphy than you guys on character vs player. A player is just that, he can play any kind of character he wants (at least the good ones can.) I've been an evil alien (In hero's unlimited) bent on world domination, and I've been, in the same system, a cariety of superheroes intenet on saving it. That's why I say character, because what the player wants depends on what kind of character he's playing. If he decided to play a holy knight, then what he wants to do will be different than if he wanted to play an evil necromancer. I feel that the character's wants are reflections of what the players want.

[Michael S. Miller]

So let's brainstorm about Save the World plots. How do you build buy-in? What are some obstacles you've encountered? Why do you feel compelled to start StW plots?

This was a great read, Luke. Personally, since I seldom run in campaign format, StW plots haven't been too big of a problem for me, although they are a staple of the fantasy genre. FWIW, I think a lot of fantasy authors use StW just as poorly as many GMs.

I've been thinking a lot about the whole concept of Saving the World lately. Blame it on that beast on my back called With Great Power..., y'know the game that says "You can save the world, but are you willing to pay the price?" My inclination is break up the saving of the world AND the destruction of the world into small, managable bits. And make sure you put a face on each bit. As Thor said, make sure it's a face that the PLAYERS care about.

The players may not care if the whole freakin' planet blows up, obliterating everyone they ever knew and everything they ever did. Why should they? It's too big to wrap the heart around (like reactions to threat of nuclear war). Plus, after the Big Boom, the game's over, so the consequence for losing isn't that big to the players: "Um, we blew up the game world." "That sucks." "What are we gonna play next week?"

However, if the world is being destroyed a piece at a time, that's interesting. Why? Because every NPC the players have ever cared about it a potential target. And some of them should be obliterated, to illustrate what's at stake. The players may shrug at saving the world, but when you show them "You're saving this piece, and this piece, and this piece, too. Remember this piece that we centered the game on for 6 months? It's in danger, too." It will be harder to shrug. Particularly in a game with such a long Real World history (11 years, my god!), the players have already bought into the world, because their play has created it. Just stretch out the threat. Mourn for each loss, and savor each small victory.

Look how the really great StW plots have been done in the source material. Tolkien wasn't just about dropping the ring into Mt Doom. It was about saving Rohan and Minas Tirith. In The Farthest Shore, Ged travels around the world seeing the bits and pieces of the world being destroyed. Surveying the casualties. Even The Nothing in the Neverending Story is great because it takes out the world bit by bit. Bits that we care about. ("They look like such big, strong hands.")

Break it down. The world is too big a thing to save. Saving each and everyone you care about. That's worth fighting for.

[luke]

Break it down. The world is too big a thing to save. Saving each and everyone you care about. That's worth fighting for.

Preach it, brother! Testify!

-L
:D

[Redoid]

The players may shrug at saving the world, but when you show them "You're saving this piece, and this piece, and this piece, too. Remember this piece that we centered the game on for 6 months? It's in danger, too." It will be harder to shrug. Particularly in a game with such a long Real World history (11 years, my god!), the players have already bought into the world, because their play has created it.

You and Thor have nicely outline the problem. You can't have players care about the world if it's a one shot. If they have spent time playing in this world, they will care more, and will decide to strive to protect it.

[Kublai]

That's why I say character, because what the player wants depends on what kind of character he's playing.

See, I think it's the opposite. A player's wants aren't determined by the character. Rather the character's wants are determined by the player. Player comes first, character comes second. Characters don't exist without players - they are the same. If the character is a knight, it's because the player chose to play a knight and gave that knight Beliefs according to themes the player wants to explore - Honor, Chivalry, etc. If the character is a necromancer, it's because the player wants to explore a different set of Beliefs - Death, Immortality, Control, etc.

By making sure the player uses a character that has Beliefs the player is interested in, you'll be sure to have a well-motivated character. Oppositely, if the character's Beliefs don't jive with the player's interests, you'll see a dull, non-participatory character.

[csjames75]

Well I happen to be four sessions into a Save The World plotline and I do have fears about railroading my players. I think Micheal's comments about breaking down the world's destruction into palpably small parts is very apt. I designed the game to be epic with a meta-storyline that will hopefully go on for at least a year or more, but I left room in the plot development such that the player's beliefs are all intimately tied to the grand plot or at least some developing side quests.

The Save the World hook is that some Ancient enemy from a time before the Viking-style humans (called the Olgari) arrived in the land, are arriving again in two weeks. Prior to this revelation, we played a session which was purely about getting all the players to the same place and where they did very little interaction with each other (The good old GM mini-sessions). Once, they got some flavor for what they were potentially fighting to protect, that's when I threatened it ... and not in a way that said if you fail, the world will die, but the implication is that if they fail the small Olgari Jarldom could be destroyed.

The first leg of the campaign is not that they will confront the big baddies that threaten to invade, but that they need to seek out more information from a demoness who lives far to the south, way past the known paths. I really didn't play this revelation well, but my players are good to gloss over minor inconsistancies.

The subsequent legs are to introduce the larger world and its races (The Alfem, the Juteen, the Fenarii, the Kree) to the players and invest them emotionally deeper in the campaign. Now that things are in motion, I've decided to take a much less active role in giving the players clues though about things they should do. Absolutely no deus ex machina.

I think the Save the World premise is so popular because by it's definition it means heroic or anti-heroic storytelling and, by definition, gives players a major impact on what happens in the world. To be pulled off successfully, I think the GM needs to have both the distant goal (the metaplot) and be very fluid and open to changes as the game develops.

Admittedly, the organic campaign (Let's call it Goal to Goal versus StW) that develops small (with heroes in the hamlet who kill the local necro who is terrorizing the village, then eventually go to the castle and get involved in some political machinations and then finally some world changing issue comes up) is great for tying together unconnected moduals and gelling character concepts through play. But, with strong character concepts already inbedded in the campaign setting, a Save the World campaign can provide all that slow ramping up but in a completely unified storyline.

Christopher

[Drozdal]

Why do we like STW plots/campaigns? My take on this is that it's all around the fantasy fiction, the cliche of the choosen one and his band of friends/followers, up against the owerwhelming darkness that will eventually destroy the world was present since mr. Tolkien shown us (and hundreds of other fantasy authors) the way. I have to admit some of the STV plots are pretty good and are really nice to read, but one should know: What is a good read usually do not translate well into the game. And all GM's should know that their players also read those books and are familiar with STW plots, so why do we have to follow those stereotpes? Because we think they are cool, and everyone will enjoy re-playing the stuff that they read over and over again? since third grade I do not think so.

[Bob Goat]

Why do we like STW plots/campaigns? My take on this is that it's all around the fantasy fiction, the cliche of the choosen one and his band of friends/followers, up against the owerwhelming darkness that will eventually destroy the world was present since mr. Tolkien shown us (and hundreds of other fantasy authors) the way. I have to admit some of the STV plots are pretty good and are really nice to read, but one should know: What is a good read usually do not translate well into the game. And all GM's should know that their players also read those books and are familiar with STW plots, so why do we have to follow those stereotpes? Because we think they are cool, and everyone will enjoy re-playing the stuff that they read over and over again? since third grade I do not think so.
If you read Howard first you get a little different perspective on the save the world riff and this was how we played when we ran them. The idea is to save yourself and if the world gets saved in the process, great. We always did our best to stay away from the whole "band of monkeys off to save us all" and instead went with, "get that fucker cause he raped my sister" only that fucker happens to be a part of the big end of the world badguy machine. Found that works better cause it creates definable goals for the GM and the Players to grapple with opposed to big ideas that no one can relate too.

Keith

[Drozdal]

If you read Howard first you get a little different perspective on the save the world riff and this was how we played when we ran them. The idea is to save yourself and if the world gets saved in the process, great.
Hey Keith

I'm also the one who read Howard before Tolkien, so your view on STW plots really suits me and my style of running games. This way characters are really part of the plot, becasue they have something personal against the big evil guy, instead compleating the last chance mission for some good guy who sits in his fortress and is too affraid to get out and clean all this mess up himself.

[Paka]

I'm not fond of save the world plots.

However my soon to happen BW campaign certainly does have a central issue, revolving around the city of Vault and the dead who are being kept out of hell by its existence. But the demons are being kept out of earth by its existence too.

Players are already making characters with different ideas on how that problem can be solved and its going to be a total mess to solve it with no right answer from the start.

My other BW game set in Marsui is more about politics in a fantasy city than anything else.

Another key to save the world plots, though, is having the players have a hand in creating that world. This can be as simple as them making up a PC who is a vital link to a part of that world, that, until the player made the PC up was just a spot on a map with a little explanation.

I know that this kind of group collaborative effort was really important to making a big fantasy world work for everyone.

[Kaare Berg]

I'm I have just entered the endgame of my StW Miranna campaign, and in light of this discussion I'd share some of my observations.

These will be brief 'cause I am exploring some aspects of them in a wordfile somewhere.

Kaare's rules of Saving the World.

involve your players from the get go. Let them know you are playing a StW game, and what role you see them taking in the coming conflict.
Let the players have an effect on the game world. If they are to be epic heroes, let them reap the benefits. I they fail, let them reap the fallout. In the end what matters is that their actions affect the world.
break the tasks into smaller chunks (once called story arcs), the reasons for are so excellently put by Michael that repeating them would be a waste of ones and zeroes. every story should build towards these smaller tasks. If it does not relate to the main goal then its a filler and it can quikly kill the momentum.
Have an ending in sight. Do not decide the final outcome, but work towards the climatic climb up Mount Doom throughout your campaign.

StW games have their place. And from time to time they rule. The points above are a nice start.

later

[Bob Goat]

I'm also the one who read Howard before Tolkien, so your view on STW plots really suits me and my style of running games. This way characters are really part of the plot, becasue they have something personal against the big evil guy, instead compleating the last chance mission for some good guy who sits in his fortress and is too affraid to get out and clean all this mess up himself.

Right on brother Droz. It's all about the people baby, not the place, dumb ass Bombadil or giant fuck eagles. Real people in situations vital to them that just happen to coencide with some fucker trying to blow this shit up.

Keith