I have an idea that could work as a BBEG still in a Sandbox situation. The party has been going around doing various random things, they eventually stumble into an Ancient Ruin or Tomb or Barrow or Ancient Forgotten Treasury. They accidentally activate an Ancient Artifact. That Artifact unlocks some Magic that awakens an Ancient Mage-King (or Witch-Queen) & his (her) Army who have been locked away for Millenia. After awakening they start trying to reform their empire, that then allows the party to decide whether they help the Ancients or oppose them or perhaps find a compromise of sorts. That Artifact could be found at any Ancient Location, so it could still be random and perhaps a Dice Roll decides if it will be found at such a location.
I've had something like this. The key was to give ample warnings to the players that if they mess with the artifact without a lot of research "something really bad could happen." As I remember, they opened it any way and a major war ensued, but in the end they had to agree that I didn't force it on them.
@@DDHomebrew Exactly, and at least to me an Artifact Route leading to something bigger is far more fun then "player make NPC become enemy". Because, an Artifact of such importance should have some Lore/History that needs to be researched and leads to a deeper depth of care about the World/Universe that you are playing in. For example: I've always liked the original 3 Dragonlance Books (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, Dragons of Spring Dawning) but didn't fully appreciate them and the Universe of Krynn until I read some other books set in that Universe as well as other Lore.
Creating the villain from the player's actions. Nice! Also remember, the PC's are the BBEG villains to somebody. Actions have consequences. Good video.
I like to think of it less as villains & nemeses, and more as proactive and reactive forces in the world. A lot of what you're describing are reactive baddies, who respond in actions and affiliation to what the PCs do, and that's super important for the players to feel like heroes. The lich you described is somewhat passively proactive, in that it is pursuing its goals, but the players will never interact with it unless they choose to engage. A classic villain would be more actively proactive, MAKING itself the PCs' business to deal with. I do believe there's a place for that, if its in service of the kind of game you and the other players want to have. All of these are tools the GM can use to bring about the experience everyone's looking for. I think what's really the most important aspect is for the *GM* to be reactive at the table. A proactive villain that makes a big splash and presents itself as a problem that MUST be addressed is a good reaction to a party that doesn't have adventuring momentum, and players that seem bummed about not knowing what it is they can do to progress their characters & story. It's kind of like a narrative version of the classic "orcs attack" method of dealing with indecisive players at a crossroads. As with all things, I think it depends on what kind of game everyone is looking to play. There's a big, open spectrum from sandbox to railroad, with a lot of amazing adventures to be found anywhere along it.
Agreed. I'm talking about an extreme where GM's create a villain who cannot be ignored and dominates the campaign. But players are looking to finding interesting opponents and defeating them, so the GM should certainly give them opportunities to do so.
@@DDHomebrew Absolutely! There are so many D&D horror stories of DMs who have their idea & story and they are hellbent on MAKING the players go through it. Heck, I don't even like going through published adventures all that much, because I feel like I have a lack of freedom to just live in the world and act as my character. I take the philosophical approach that I have a villain and central tension ready to go, and some lose idea of what important plot points might exist along the way, but if my players take things a different direction, GREAT! I've got a story there for them if they want it (or they don't feel compelled to go looking for adventure of their own accord, which happens to all of us sometimes), but everything I prepare is disposable. When they go a different direction, it's my job to make sure that whichever way they go, adventure awaits them. And that is a sentiment I know we share.
Great video! I personaly do set up "big bads" in the world. Going after them is up to the players. They can and things will happen. They can ignore them and things will happen. Events are always happening in the world. The players are the center of the game but not the center of the world. All events have benefits and consequences if ignored or dealt with. Maybe a small orc horde is rising in the East. Maybe the players go after it. Maybe they don't. Maybe the towns they are used to doing business in are burned to the ground now. Maybe an insane mage is rising in the North. Maybe they go after them. Maybe they don't. Maybe the North is now ruled by the insane mage. Things happen. One thing is that none of the events are "world level threats". No one event will end the world. Wars? Yes. Nations falling? Sure. Terrible or great events are always going on. The players can ignore them or not. I am the straight man and I am always neutral.
The players can be the heros of the realm, all day and all night, but only if they choose to do so. Did they defeat the rising orc horde in the east? Did they go after the insane mage in the north? Hero status attained.
personally its how the table feel like playing. If you determine they want to wander and find adventure themselves, then sandbox - ish play is the flavour. If they are not feeling too imaginative then you may need to lead the way. Either way is still a valid way to play. Test the mood and chat with players to see how they are feeling about the potential game. If they dont have much feedback, give them incentive by using examples of encounters or possible story. if they feel drawn to solve the story, railroad it is. If they feel compelled to explore the story but potentially not stay in it, then put them in the pump truck on the railroad and give them the option to jump off anywhere along the tracks. When they do, grab an encounter or one shot or module and use it for the data, or if they get hooked take them on the ride. The big bad can be something they see as the main threat from your story or the module youve suggested or could be the situation they are creating for themselves, based on the choices they make as they decide to jump of the track along the way. :) just my 2 bits
I always set up possible encounters and personalities in my world, and present them in a way that I think the players might "take the bait" and explore more or interact more. But, if they choose to do something else, I always let that flow naturally. What I don't like is a big bad who can't be ignored: the threat is too great or they intrude on the players or whatever the players do it always tracks back to that personage. I like the enemies to truly flow from the player's actions.
@@DDHomebrew Small campaign setting locations spread out by a few days of travel. Rapid short 20 to 30minute soap opera play. Multiple PC groups played by the players in different locations as complete different PC alignment. Heroes in one township and a different PC being noble inside job hostile takeover. Discredit your rivals and buy them out. Two or three short Chapter games per hour. Recap last week " as news/ gossip " travels. Each location has fast travel rumors others a few days travel by road or ranger speed endurance over hill run. Roll random dice on how things travel on a bi weekly bases/ monthly. Husband & wife .. joked .. about getting drunk and banging on the window frame. Table yelled, " .. Roll for number of drinks and how drunk you are. ..! " Yeah, well .. lost their balance and fell out the window onto someone's moving stagecoach. That Act was written into the random list of what can go wrong. Players multi n/PCs gearing up to take out the BBG each for their own alignments reasons. The bbg and dance hall girl fell drunk out of a 5th story level and landed wrong/ DoL dead on landing. The three under bosses fought to the death for control that night. Now his five children are on the run from everybody. Anti-climatic for the players, but King John died of the runs. In a grim dark campaign, we had PCs die from the runs. Cure disease is a 3rd-level cleric spell and none of us were at 5th-level yet. Then we had our stander 2to3hr play with stander PC one shots or mini/long campaign. One thing to quick read or listen to setting lore, another is to n/PC play through it.
I normally will just throw an “overarching theme” or “plot” going on, but the players only get involved with it if they want to. I always throw it in though to create a dynamic sort of “environment” to a world. For example, one game I ran there is a country (empire) who is executing mages, halfbreeds, and outsider entities. They have a full on inquisition going out and everything. But the players chose instead of messing with that, they’re gonna do other stuff. Which is fine. But that church isn’t going to just sit there. They’re going to have public executions in towns. They’re going to have agents sniffing out mages and trying to capture them. And more importantly rebel groups are going to fight the church. My party has for 17 levels, ignored this church except when one of the plot hooks took them to sneak around their area and break some people out (allys of theirs). And then continued to go and do their own stuff once busting them out and escaping. It helps set the tone, and lets an overarching villain be there, acting, and influencing the players/world in some way. If there’s ever a “BBEG” it’s normally an escaped NPC that the players dislike or have issues with.
It's amazing that your players managed to avoid running up against this empire for 17 levels! There must have been a lot of cool things to do in your world, and the players managed to avoid being swept up in the inquisition.
@@DDHomebrew they definitely encountered them a few times, or got word they were coming to a nearby location. My players were just very good and determined to avoid them instead of confront lol
I have participated for several years in a campaign as you describe in the video and in the comments and have really enjoyed it! Thanks for the video that could help others be open to this possibility if their group do chooses.
I agree with you, a lot of people aren't playing a sand box game. i have five teams or single adventures running in my world. Original game, Ex-gamers, a Youth game most in their twenties now, and a single summer campaign. The Summer campaign is taking place on Arrith just not with me as the DM. So, the summer session players were off to help some coal-mining dwarves in the Wyvern's Teeth Mountains. Which we fought an ankheg until it escaped into some tunnels. We had no time for that, so, we journeyed on. When we returned to home base, The City of Heavensspire, banners were unfurled and the royal trumpeters could heard at a distance. The Wizard got us all presentable and we strolled into town like a CEO, CFO, and bunch of Bosses, but no one greeted us. They were celebrating a beginner party who killed an ankheg that had started terrorizing the farmers after we'd left.
@@DDHomebrew No, we have five DMs that run 12 groups in one world, we keep a world history online accessible to each of those DMs, so we can play off of each other's stories and have an accurate record of changes to the world. So, when our party failed to kill the ankheg it became an available roaming monster near Heavenspire. Another DM, running another game in our world used the used the ankheg story line. That's how our world works. The story is marked as finished with three further story lines, 1, Ankheg mate/nest, 2.Tunnels, 3. Wizard marked corpse. (We got the idea back when 'Thieves' World' and 'Aces High' books were a thing.) It's a sandbox for the DMs, as well as the players, Dms don't have to take a story, neither do players, it's just there if you want to make something of it.
@@carlosvillanueva8530 That makes sense as well. It's actually very interesting to have 5 DM's in one world: I've never taken part in that sort of campaign.
You have a different definition for a Railroad then I do. A railroad isn't just when there is an obvious plot (or plots) to follow but when there is only one option for _how to_ follow that plot. So if the plot needs you to go from A to B, in an open campaign you can use whatever method you want, on a Railroad you have to book passage on a particular ship. A railroad is when the DM is making all the decisions for the group, which is why it's so often compared to the DM "writing a novel".
I had a lot of fun with a NPC that *wanted* to be the BBEG - and failed spectacularly at it, nearly blowing up the entire area in the process. The consequences of this were a lot harder to get rid of than a BBEG would be. He didn't even particularly care about the PCs - they had never bothered him at all.
@@DDHomebrew It started out as your standard BBEG stuff - high level evil wizard decides to become a lich. I assigned a probability of success, and rolled the percentile dice - rolling what would be a critical failure on the lich ritual if a PC was doing it. Had it succeeded, the lich would have been one of many local factions. The would-be phylactery blew up, creating the magical equivalent of Hurricane Katrina , annihilating the wizard and opening up a rent into the Negative Material plane - releasing a ton of wraiths, wights, and nightshades as well as starting the D&D equivalent of Return of the Living Dead. They did eventually close the rent, but it was an interesting process for them figuring out what happened and how to close it.
@@Giles29 I always love the magical catastrophe idea, especially as a backstory for an area. It always seemed to me that some practitioners would get greedy and screw things up. Sort of a Chernobyl effect.
A linear campaign is not the same as a railroad. A linear campaign has a determined end goal but the players still can choose how to approach challenges. A railroad ignores player decisions.
It's a common bit of advice we see lately telling GM's to let their players have full 100% agency, but I always wonder if most players, especially new players can have full agency. Ive tried to run sandbox games, told the players to have clear goals, but once the sandbox opens up they shut down and more often than not end up just doing the most unconnected string of insanity that achieves nothing but some laughs at the table, then the campaign fizzles out cause there is not over arching plot for them to sink their teeth in. so once they run out of goals for themselves they just dont wanna play anymore.
I think there's a wide area between the 100% agency you describe and a linear railroad. I always setup the personages and storylines of the world, let me players decide where they want to go, then continue to develop those storylines so that the players realize things are happening around them. Next, the activities of the players generate actions by these forces that come into direct opposition to the players, which forces them to confront them. And this reactions also stop them from the unconnected insanity you describe: that will get them in trouble!
I know I don't need them, but I want them hahaha. Though you make great points on the idea of the chars making the villain. I try to do that as a halfway, best of both worlds, in my setting I'm running where the main big bad villain actually loves the party and wants to use them to complete his plans and kill them if he feels its necessary. They mat him very early in the campaign and their actions affect his outlooks on his plans.
That's such a great point: what if the potential BBEG likes the players or presents themselves as their ally? It could be a ruse but it could also be that they see them as usefule and will help them so long as they do what they want.
i dont have one i have more than one bbeg theres the larger one and the smaller ones while the players can pick up on whats hapening only they choose to get more info about the potencialy evil creature/npc of the location in question if they dont then they donnt
Just slightly disagreeing with you today. My BBEG is far in the background stirring trouble everywhere. The players run into factions and individuals being manipulated by him everywhere they go. There are also independent bad guys and groups doing ill all on their own. The world turns and they are free to go any where they want. At some point, they will find it advantageous to take him on, but they don't have to. The point of the game is not a BBEG death quest, so in that vein, I agree.
No problem if you disagree: I'm all for different game styles. And I do have villains, both minor and major. I just don't really know when I begin the campaign just how big those villains will be, and how the over-all story of the campaign will unfold.
I think I agree with where you wound up by the end of the video, but up until then I was listening and thinking “No, nope, not that.” In my mind this isn’t a BBEG issue so much as a No Choice issue. If there is only one thing going on in a campaign, and only one way to confront it…then yes that’s a terrible campaign and the GM should just write a novel (like you mentioned with the Middle Earth tournament game). If there are a lot of Threats in the campaign, that the party can see and witness the consequences of, and choose which and how to handle, then you’ve got something solid. Doesn’t matter if those threats are BBEGs, diseases, environmental disasters, political movements, or whatever.
The thing is, Sandbox and Railroad aren't the 2 only campagne structure, Linear campagne also exist, That the type of campaign I run. - The players have multiple plothook, and chose the one they want to follow, and their choice impact how the world evolve and how the big bad plan will go, but until they stop the BBEG, the BBEG will not stop his plan by himself. - The players can choose to not stop the BBEG, and then I'll develop another from their action, but this first BBEG will NEVER stop until either he achieve his goal, or the hero stop him (or some NPC adventurers stop him... but this also will have consequences, for exemple the creation of a rival adventuring group. at the end those are still Linear campaign, the players have multiple plot hook yes, but the overall story is centered around some overarching plot that bring everything together. The starting point of saying : if it's not a sandbox, it's a railroad, is a huge issue of thinking (the Curse of Strahd exemple, CoS isn't a railroad, it's a linear adventure, most published adventure, Even Kingmaker for PF2e, are linear campaign)
I can see what you're saying here, and I love the idea of powerful NPC's and sentient monsters continuing with their plans whether the players engage with them or not. That creates a real, dynamic world. I tend not to use an over-arching storyline in my worlds, but rely on the actions of the players to create one, but I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. Just my preference.
@@DDHomebrew totally agree, the best way to do things is the way both the gm and players enjoy :). I was just saying that there is a middle ground between pure sandbox and railroad where BBEG still have a good role to play :). my preference is to have a certain amount of things ( usually around 85% at the start ( like 1st/2nd adventure) and more like 15/20% at the end ) that aren't consequences of my players actions. after all, they are the hero of our game but they aren't the only adventurer in the world ( especially since most of my campaign take place in Golarion or Granzale )
@@VentsongeGaming There's an argument to be made that there's no such thing as a "pure" sandbox, since the GM is setting things up in advance. But it's that balance that is the key.
I think there is a fundamental disagreement here with your idea of a Sandbox. When I create a playable world for my players, I create the larger picture and then focus on the area in which they operate. For instance, I have a map of the world, key points of interest that have huge impact, like major cities/kingdoms, etc., topography, and massive waterways. In my current campaign, we focused into a major forest that dominates the north-central portion of the map. It's a single player druid campaign. That forest and the map that of that continent is the sandbox, my player can go everywhere and anywhere they want, but I have small 'stories' that the druid is tasked to accomplish. This framework allows the player to have a task to do because, generally, a game with no tasks is boring as hell since essentially you put all the requirement of the fun on the player(s) who, I'd argue, don't know how to find adventure. Plus, I'd also argue that you start an adventure with "you're in a tavern, what do you do?" there is nothing happening, nothing going on, and the full scope of play is on the player's laps with no indicator as to the next step. Very few ever want that situation. You start in media res. In this case, a hierophant has asked this druid to scout an area of the forest while the rest of the grove has to bother with something else (an violent encroachment of people in the east of the forest.. She now has a task, gets to travel and see more of the forest and encounter all kinds of little tidbits of lore, clues, wonders, and scares. She completes that, gets tasked with another thing and goes on that mission. While this might feel like railroading at first glance, the player has determined that the druid does want to follow orders, appease the hierophant, and solve the problem of this mission, even though she can go off somewhere else, she has learned some new things, like a reference to a gnome homeland not quite nearby. I added a cleric to help with this current task who has missions of her own that the druid learns a little of. After this mission, the cleric asks the druid to guide her to a known ranger of the woods, she needs a guide to the far north of the forest, the druid can easily follow along and travel north if she wants, the option is totally there. Instead, the ongoing clues in the campaign is that something odd is happening, the couple of hints she has regarding this has put her into a position to decide that she wants to follow that string of information. The player has established that the forest is the druids home and she values that. Something seems like it's threatening her home. So, I've laid out nuggets of story she can follow for a campaign adventure, there are other threads she can follow to change the entire direction of the campaign and I can place those beats where they need to as she makes decisions. For now, as a DM, I've given her the groundwork for her campaign that she has chosen to follow with the understanding that other things in the world are happening. When it comes to railroading, generally it's a bad thing because you take away the player agency to feel like they are in control of the story, meaning there is only one solution that the DM has determined is the only solution no matter the player choice - to defeat this boss, she'll have to cast this spell, to get through this obstacle she'll have to wildshape. The DM shouldn't be planning campaigns like that because that's the player's part of the story to figure out how thy succeed or fail something. But, there is nothing wrong with giving them a plot hook or three that they can take or leave as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with giving them a big a story to complete as well, maybe the king has presented a need for adventurers to save the kingdom from a threat and earn a keep and baronship of their own. The players can all agree to do this adventure because it seems like it would be a fun problem to solve. A sandbox should give players many options to pursue but the DM needs to put in plot hooks that give the players choices in where they go and what they get involved in. A linear story can be just as fun, giving the players a clear line on what needs to be done. A west marches campaign can also be just as fun allowing the player to play without much in the way of high stakes or overarching story that they craft. Simply providing missions to find an artifact, discover info, locate a place, whatever is the point of that game, maybe the DM can have an overall story but the players aren't necessarily building it as they go, the DM is. A sandbox isn't just a free-for-all, where the players have to direct the whole show.
I agree with almost everything you say in your description of a sandbox, except where you infer that I'm saying the players have to direct all of the action. Since I set up the world and its personages, I also set up all sorts of plot hooks that the players might follow. And I also to set up multiple plot hooks to give them choices. And I'm charting all of these plot hooks as the players explore the world. Then, after the players have followed through on a partcular storyline, new developments might arise from their actions, which they could follow or ignore, much like your heirophant giving them another task. If you do a good job for someone they'll hire you again! But, if the players were to ignore the heirophant, there are the other plot hooks I set out, or new ones that have arisen while they were finishing that first task. And so on and so forth. And when they gain renown, it makes sense for a king or high level wizard to ask them for help on a problem. And if there is some dangerous forcing massing out in the wilderness, the players may take it upon themselves to respond. Or they may still go somewhere else! Because once they travel and see all the possible stories I've laid out, I'm always surprised at what they find interesting. And that's the fun of a sandbox!
@@DDHomebrew Got it, that makes sense then. You and I on the same page. We're setting up an adventure with certain things in place and letting the players explore as they progress and decide which plot hooks they bite on. It wasn't clear to me, especially with your description of Curse of Strahd where the entire premise of the story is to defeat Strahd and escape Barovia. And while that game has a particular set up that can be fun and challenging for your players, I understand what you mean about kinda being locked into Barovia and having to deal with the singular main plot hook. I find, personally, using premade adventures to be hard because of all the extra work I have to put into giving it the freedom I like for my games. They can be great, but I enjoy my stories to be organic from a collaboration with what my players create and what choices they make out of everything they experience within the world. Thanks for responding, great advice!
@@EpherosAldor It's tough to flesh out thoughts in a 14 minute video, but that's what makes the comments section so great: I'm able to write out what I clearly didn't make obvious in the video!
As I game more, the more i dislike the BBEG villian type. I much rather have several villains, sometimes with conflicting goals. I think it makes the game more interesting by giving the players more options
I have to disagree with your premise about not having big bad villains. It is impossible not to have them. Example, a Kingdom run by a tyrant, A lich created by an evil cult, a monster from the coastal depths. What I do before a campaign is run the villains a year out. They will do things whether or not the players interact with them. The best way is with a calendar. Every few weeks plan on the villains doing something against an opponent, [not necessarily a player, but a rival kingdom, a rival villain and so on. The players can elect not to encounter them, but the world is changed by their actions or inactions. This isn't railroading, unless you make it untenable for the players to act out their own ideas. The biggest problem with most sandboxes is lack of direction. Create different villains, a monster, a noble, or a event. The monster is good for players who like hack and slash adventures, the Noble is good for those who like to role play and diplomacy and events can be almost anything, like heists, creature hunts, espionage, anything you like. Create a buffet for your players to feast on and they will. You are right that players can make their own villains and allies but that is supplemental until they find their bearings in the world, then you can expand on that. Another point is player backstories. If they have them then you are almost certainly going to use those as potential villains and allies. If your referring to using modules in a sandbox, I can see your point. Without a lot of work, it's certainly possible to have railroading in those cases. Good topic, thanks for sharing.
I like your ideas on creating formidable creatures in the world that the players think of as villains. The lich or powerful monster. And how you run them in your world whether the players interact with them or not. I always create these as well and run them that way. But, I just don't have any of these villains as the necessary ultimate goal of the campaign: they might just become the focus of the player's interests, but maybe not. They may find more potent enemies as they run, and ignore the lich who runs his cult. And that's OK. I don't want to tell them what to do.
@@DDHomebrew Then I have misunderstood you and we both do the same thing. They are there to provide foundation for the players. I totally agree with you in that the players can make enemies from the most inoculate beginnings. One of the most memorable was a fanboy who worshipped the ground the players walked on, but kind of was in there way and the players brushed him off. I let them play for a about a year when this villian starts hiring bounty hunters after the players. You should have seen the look on their faces when they found out it was the fanboy they ignored.
Why can't you make faction for those players then they have multiple way to go about destroying, ally with them, or do nothing at its still there choice. With multiple factions they have more choice. This gives them much more choices in my opinion.
Absolutely! I do present plot hooks that could involve the players with an oppostional force. And if they choose to engage in that storyline and make that force aware of them, they'll have trouble!
I realy have to think about this. I GMed a realy sandboxy Blades in the Dark campaign the last 6 months. I showcase some evil NPCs. My players thought that one of them was a BBEG. But he was not. But my players thought he was. And there after they railroaded themselves into defeating him. I still don’t know if that was good or not 🤔 it took away from their freedom of choice for the last third of the game but at least it was their choice.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that players can railroad themselves: they assume "this is the big bad we should go after" so off they go. And it can be a fun campaign, but sometimes when things go bad the players can come back and say "but you wanted us to go after him!"
@@DDHomebrew I will try your approach in the next season of our campaign. I guess we are all too conditioned into thinking there always has to be a big bad evil guy (that wants to end the world) in every story.
@@Frederic_S And there can be! I just like it when they decide to destroy the world to punish the players for what they've done during the course of the campaign. Heh heh.
Heros and Villians are intertwined, a protagonist is only as entertaining and complex as their antagonist. It's fine to create a BBEG character if you're clear about it before the game, as then your players can build characters that would be logical protagonist counterparts.
I'm OK with creating powerful villains at the outset of a campaign, but I want the players to be able to ignore it if they choose. But I'm also away that other GM's feel differently.
@@DDHomebrew Village is very crowded, make a Spot check with exhaust for the number of turns/hours you been there. Lots of sights to keep track of. The cleric was so busy blessing everyone, he didn't notice Robbin Hood took his ring, .. again. As he blessed him. As it is said in action spy movies, lookout people screaming into the security camera, " He walk just by you, Turn around ! You just missed them!"
This is GM level 10+, for players still getting usd to GMing, this is way too complicated, it is far easier to start out linnearly and throw in some various things as they come.
@@DDHomebrew Many ideas are appreciated, but sometimes the difference between "Game night tonight!" and silence(at least from my experience) can be "Okay, I prepared this adventure for you. Go too far off the beaten track and we'll get stuck down in the mud", so much to the point that it can feel that the norm is "eh, we tried, it died out, whatever" but we mostly chat about the "yeah we got on like a house on fire for years"
You don't understand D&D is largely based on heroic fantasy. The quest to defeat evil also levels the characters. If the players just did whatever they wanted there's no real ademture and no capability to level up. Even milestone x.p. needs some parameters of success. What you want is improv theater 😂
As a player, what I didn't want is to be forced into a linear, step by step path (the railroad/module). As a GM, I allow the players to go and do whatever they want. If they take a plot hook, there may be a linear path to completion, but they are free to break off and go a different direction and the game goes on. They may even pick up that story line later. Not improve theater, more like real life.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
I have an idea that could work as a BBEG still in a Sandbox situation. The party has been going around doing various random things, they eventually stumble into an Ancient Ruin or Tomb or Barrow or Ancient Forgotten Treasury. They accidentally activate an Ancient Artifact. That Artifact unlocks some Magic that awakens an Ancient Mage-King (or Witch-Queen) & his (her) Army who have been locked away for Millenia. After awakening they start trying to reform their empire, that then allows the party to decide whether they help the Ancients or oppose them or perhaps find a compromise of sorts.
That Artifact could be found at any Ancient Location, so it could still be random and perhaps a Dice Roll decides if it will be found at such a location.
I've had something like this. The key was to give ample warnings to the players that if they mess with the artifact without a lot of research "something really bad could happen." As I remember, they opened it any way and a major war ensued, but in the end they had to agree that I didn't force it on them.
@@DDHomebrew Exactly, and at least to me an Artifact Route leading to something bigger is far more fun then "player make NPC become enemy". Because, an Artifact of such importance should have some Lore/History that needs to be researched and leads to a deeper depth of care about the World/Universe that you are playing in. For example: I've always liked the original 3 Dragonlance Books (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, Dragons of Spring Dawning) but didn't fully appreciate them and the Universe of Krynn until I read some other books set in that Universe as well as other Lore.
Creating the villain from the player's actions. Nice! Also remember, the PC's are the BBEG villains to somebody. Actions have consequences. Good video.
Glad you liked it!
I like to think of it less as villains & nemeses, and more as proactive and reactive forces in the world. A lot of what you're describing are reactive baddies, who respond in actions and affiliation to what the PCs do, and that's super important for the players to feel like heroes. The lich you described is somewhat passively proactive, in that it is pursuing its goals, but the players will never interact with it unless they choose to engage. A classic villain would be more actively proactive, MAKING itself the PCs' business to deal with. I do believe there's a place for that, if its in service of the kind of game you and the other players want to have. All of these are tools the GM can use to bring about the experience everyone's looking for.
I think what's really the most important aspect is for the *GM* to be reactive at the table. A proactive villain that makes a big splash and presents itself as a problem that MUST be addressed is a good reaction to a party that doesn't have adventuring momentum, and players that seem bummed about not knowing what it is they can do to progress their characters & story. It's kind of like a narrative version of the classic "orcs attack" method of dealing with indecisive players at a crossroads.
As with all things, I think it depends on what kind of game everyone is looking to play. There's a big, open spectrum from sandbox to railroad, with a lot of amazing adventures to be found anywhere along it.
Agreed. I'm talking about an extreme where GM's create a villain who cannot be ignored and dominates the campaign. But players are looking to finding interesting opponents and defeating them, so the GM should certainly give them opportunities to do so.
@@DDHomebrew Absolutely! There are so many D&D horror stories of DMs who have their idea & story and they are hellbent on MAKING the players go through it. Heck, I don't even like going through published adventures all that much, because I feel like I have a lack of freedom to just live in the world and act as my character.
I take the philosophical approach that I have a villain and central tension ready to go, and some lose idea of what important plot points might exist along the way, but if my players take things a different direction, GREAT! I've got a story there for them if they want it (or they don't feel compelled to go looking for adventure of their own accord, which happens to all of us sometimes), but everything I prepare is disposable. When they go a different direction, it's my job to make sure that whichever way they go, adventure awaits them.
And that is a sentiment I know we share.
@@GregMcNeish Exactly. It's a lot of work, but once players realize the freedom they have it's worth it.
Great video!
I personaly do set up "big bads" in the world. Going after them is up to the players. They can and things will happen. They can ignore them and things will happen. Events are always happening in the world. The players are the center of the game but not the center of the world. All events have benefits and consequences if ignored or dealt with.
Maybe a small orc horde is rising in the East. Maybe the players go after it. Maybe they don't. Maybe the towns they are used to doing business in are burned to the ground now. Maybe an insane mage is rising in the North. Maybe they go after them. Maybe they don't. Maybe the North is now ruled by the insane mage. Things happen.
One thing is that none of the events are "world level threats". No one event will end the world. Wars? Yes. Nations falling? Sure. Terrible or great events are always going on. The players can ignore them or not. I am the straight man and I am always neutral.
You've pretty much defined the way I run things. But I can also see the desire to escape a "real life" template and be the heroes of the realm.
The players can be the heros of the realm, all day and all night, but only if they choose to do so. Did they defeat the rising orc horde in the east? Did they go after the insane mage in the north? Hero status attained.
@@anon_laughing_man And they can choose to look out for themselves and gain riches Conan style.
Exactly. Do they they want to Conan or Aragorn? We leave it up to the players. We just provide the tools for them to do as they want.
@@anon_laughing_man Yep.
personally its how the table feel like playing. If you determine they want to wander and find adventure themselves, then sandbox - ish play is the flavour. If they are not feeling too imaginative then you may need to lead the way. Either way is still a valid way to play. Test the mood and chat with players to see how they are feeling about the potential game. If they dont have much feedback, give them incentive by using examples of encounters or possible story. if they feel drawn to solve the story, railroad it is. If they feel compelled to explore the story but potentially not stay in it, then put them in the pump truck on the railroad and give them the option to jump off anywhere along the tracks. When they do, grab an encounter or one shot or module and use it for the data, or if they get hooked take them on the ride. The big bad can be something they see as the main threat from your story or the module youve suggested or could be the situation they are creating for themselves, based on the choices they make as they decide to jump of the track along the way. :) just my 2 bits
I always set up possible encounters and personalities in my world, and present them in a way that I think the players might "take the bait" and explore more or interact more. But, if they choose to do something else, I always let that flow naturally. What I don't like is a big bad who can't be ignored: the threat is too great or they intrude on the players or whatever the players do it always tracks back to that personage. I like the enemies to truly flow from the player's actions.
@@DDHomebrew Small campaign setting locations spread out by a few days of travel.
Rapid short 20 to 30minute soap opera play.
Multiple PC groups played by the players in different locations as complete different PC alignment.
Heroes in one township and a different PC being noble inside job hostile takeover. Discredit your rivals and buy them out.
Two or three short Chapter games per hour.
Recap last week " as news/ gossip " travels. Each location has fast travel rumors others a few days travel by road or ranger speed endurance over hill run.
Roll random dice on how things travel on a bi weekly bases/ monthly.
Husband & wife .. joked .. about getting drunk and banging on the window frame.
Table yelled, " .. Roll for number of drinks and how drunk you are. ..! "
Yeah, well .. lost their balance and fell out the window onto someone's moving stagecoach.
That Act was written into the random list of what can go wrong.
Players multi n/PCs gearing up to take out the BBG each for their own alignments reasons.
The bbg and dance hall girl fell drunk out of a 5th story level and landed wrong/ DoL dead on landing.
The three under bosses fought to the death for control that night. Now his five children are on the run from everybody.
Anti-climatic for the players, but King John died of the runs.
In a grim dark campaign, we had PCs die from the runs. Cure disease is a 3rd-level cleric spell and none of us were at 5th-level yet.
Then we had our stander 2to3hr play with stander PC one shots or mini/long campaign.
One thing to quick read or listen to setting lore, another is to n/PC play through it.
Haven't heard this talked about and realize it is a problem I have when trying to build my sandbox worlds.
I hope the video helps your game!
I normally will just throw an “overarching theme” or “plot” going on, but the players only get involved with it if they want to. I always throw it in though to create a dynamic sort of “environment” to a world.
For example, one game I ran there is a country (empire) who is executing mages, halfbreeds, and outsider entities. They have a full on inquisition going out and everything. But the players chose instead of messing with that, they’re gonna do other stuff. Which is fine. But that church isn’t going to just sit there. They’re going to have public executions in towns. They’re going to have agents sniffing out mages and trying to capture them. And more importantly rebel groups are going to fight the church.
My party has for 17 levels, ignored this church except when one of the plot hooks took them to sneak around their area and break some people out (allys of theirs). And then continued to go and do their own stuff once busting them out and escaping.
It helps set the tone, and lets an overarching villain be there, acting, and influencing the players/world in some way.
If there’s ever a “BBEG” it’s normally an escaped NPC that the players dislike or have issues with.
It's amazing that your players managed to avoid running up against this empire for 17 levels! There must have been a lot of cool things to do in your world, and the players managed to avoid being swept up in the inquisition.
@@DDHomebrew they definitely encountered them a few times, or got word they were coming to a nearby location. My players were just very good and determined to avoid them instead of confront lol
@@KHfanz That's the thing about those pesky players: they do what they want!
I have participated for several years in a campaign as you describe in the video and in the comments and have really enjoyed it! Thanks for the video that could help others be open to this possibility if their group do chooses.
So glad you liked the video!
This helps me go back to the proactive player in games ive been hungry for.
I want the players to drive the action.
I agree with you, a lot of people aren't playing a sand box game. i have five teams or single adventures running in my world. Original game, Ex-gamers, a Youth game most in their twenties now, and a single summer campaign. The Summer campaign is taking place on Arrith just not with me as the DM. So, the summer session players were off to help some coal-mining dwarves in the Wyvern's Teeth Mountains. Which we fought an ankheg until it escaped into some tunnels. We had no time for that, so, we journeyed on. When we returned to home base, The City of Heavensspire, banners were unfurled and the royal trumpeters could heard at a distance. The Wizard got us all presentable and we strolled into town like a CEO, CFO, and bunch of Bosses, but no one greeted us. They were celebrating a beginner party who killed an ankheg that had started terrorizing the farmers after we'd left.
That is a classic outcome of players ignoring a plot hook!
@@DDHomebrew No, we have five DMs that run 12 groups in one world, we keep a world history online accessible to each of those DMs, so we can play off of each other's stories and have an accurate record of changes to the world. So, when our party failed to kill the ankheg it became an available roaming monster near Heavenspire. Another DM, running another game in our world used the used the ankheg story line. That's how our world works. The story is marked as finished with three further story lines, 1, Ankheg mate/nest, 2.Tunnels, 3. Wizard marked corpse. (We got the idea back when 'Thieves' World' and 'Aces High' books were a thing.) It's a sandbox for the DMs, as well as the players, Dms don't have to take a story, neither do players, it's just there if you want to make something of it.
@@carlosvillanueva8530 That makes sense as well. It's actually very interesting to have 5 DM's in one world: I've never taken part in that sort of campaign.
@@DDHomebrew The Summer DMs seem to be afraid, so I'll send you an invite in the fall when I go back to DM-ing.
@@carlosvillanueva8530 Sounds good!
You have no idea how much you made my wife feel validated as a GM
Glad to hear it!
One of the best RPG theorizing videos I've seen in a long time!
Glad you enjoyed it!
You have a different definition for a Railroad then I do. A railroad isn't just when there is an obvious plot (or plots) to follow but when there is only one option for _how to_ follow that plot. So if the plot needs you to go from A to B, in an open campaign you can use whatever method you want, on a Railroad you have to book passage on a particular ship.
A railroad is when the DM is making all the decisions for the group, which is why it's so often compared to the DM "writing a novel".
I have realized that perhaps a definition of railroading and sandbox is need. I will do that soon!
Absolutely agree with them creating the nemesis. It creates reason for them to escape to fight another day instead of the classic fight to the death!
And it's truly personal, which brings investment by the characters.
I had a lot of fun with a NPC that *wanted* to be the BBEG - and failed spectacularly at it, nearly blowing up the entire area in the process. The consequences of this were a lot harder to get rid of than a BBEG would be. He didn't even particularly care about the PCs - they had never bothered him at all.
That's an interesting take on the power hungry villain who's not quite up to the task! We've seen that historically in the real world.
@@DDHomebrew It started out as your standard BBEG stuff - high level evil wizard decides to become a lich. I assigned a probability of success, and rolled the percentile dice - rolling what would be a critical failure on the lich ritual if a PC was doing it. Had it succeeded, the lich would have been one of many local factions. The would-be phylactery blew up, creating the magical equivalent of Hurricane Katrina , annihilating the wizard and opening up a rent into the Negative Material plane - releasing a ton of wraiths, wights, and nightshades as well as starting the D&D equivalent of Return of the Living Dead. They did eventually close the rent, but it was an interesting process for them figuring out what happened and how to close it.
@@Giles29 I always love the magical catastrophe idea, especially as a backstory for an area. It always seemed to me that some practitioners would get greedy and screw things up. Sort of a Chernobyl effect.
A linear campaign is not the same as a railroad. A linear campaign has a determined end goal but the players still can choose how to approach challenges. A railroad ignores player decisions.
I see your point here. But, what if the players just want to go off and explore your world, ignoring the linear story line? Can they?
It's a common bit of advice we see lately telling GM's to let their players have full 100% agency, but I always wonder if most players, especially new players can have full agency. Ive tried to run sandbox games, told the players to have clear goals, but once the sandbox opens up they shut down and more often than not end up just doing the most unconnected string of insanity that achieves nothing but some laughs at the table, then the campaign fizzles out cause there is not over arching plot for them to sink their teeth in. so once they run out of goals for themselves they just dont wanna play anymore.
I think there's a wide area between the 100% agency you describe and a linear railroad. I always setup the personages and storylines of the world, let me players decide where they want to go, then continue to develop those storylines so that the players realize things are happening around them. Next, the activities of the players generate actions by these forces that come into direct opposition to the players, which forces them to confront them. And this reactions also stop them from the unconnected insanity you describe: that will get them in trouble!
I know I don't need them, but I want them hahaha. Though you make great points on the idea of the chars making the villain. I try to do that as a halfway, best of both worlds, in my setting I'm running where the main big bad villain actually loves the party and wants to use them to complete his plans and kill them if he feels its necessary. They mat him very early in the campaign and their actions affect his outlooks on his plans.
That's such a great point: what if the potential BBEG likes the players or presents themselves as their ally? It could be a ruse but it could also be that they see them as usefule and will help them so long as they do what they want.
i dont have one i have more than one bbeg
theres the larger one and the smaller ones while the players can pick up on whats hapening
only they choose to get more info about the potencialy evil creature/npc of the location in question
if they dont then they donnt
That's the way I generally do it as well.
Good stuff. Thanks for the video.
BECMI Forever!
Long Live King Elmore!!
Glad you liked it!
Just slightly disagreeing with you today. My BBEG is far in the background stirring trouble everywhere. The players run into factions and individuals being manipulated by him everywhere they go. There are also independent bad guys and groups doing ill all on their own. The world turns and they are free to go any where they want. At some point, they will find it advantageous to take him on, but they don't have to. The point of the game is not a BBEG death quest, so in that vein, I agree.
No problem if you disagree: I'm all for different game styles. And I do have villains, both minor and major. I just don't really know when I begin the campaign just how big those villains will be, and how the over-all story of the campaign will unfold.
I think I agree with where you wound up by the end of the video, but up until then I was listening and thinking “No, nope, not that.”
In my mind this isn’t a BBEG issue so much as a No Choice issue. If there is only one thing going on in a campaign, and only one way to confront it…then yes that’s a terrible campaign and the GM should just write a novel (like you mentioned with the Middle Earth tournament game). If there are a lot of Threats in the campaign, that the party can see and witness the consequences of, and choose which and how to handle, then you’ve got something solid.
Doesn’t matter if those threats are BBEGs, diseases, environmental disasters, political movements, or whatever.
I sometimes take a bit to get to the point on these videos. I'm glad you stuck it out to the end!
Always, even when I don’t 100% see eye to eye I enjoy your videos.
@@SnowmanInHell And I like to hear differing viewpoints. I can learn something.
The thing is, Sandbox and Railroad aren't the 2 only campagne structure, Linear campagne also exist, That the type of campaign I run.
- The players have multiple plothook, and chose the one they want to follow, and their choice impact how the world evolve and how the big bad plan will go, but until they stop the BBEG, the BBEG will not stop his plan by himself.
- The players can choose to not stop the BBEG, and then I'll develop another from their action, but this first BBEG will NEVER stop until either he achieve his goal, or the hero stop him (or some NPC adventurers stop him... but this also will have consequences, for exemple the creation of a rival adventuring group.
at the end those are still Linear campaign, the players have multiple plot hook yes, but the overall story is centered around some overarching plot that bring everything together.
The starting point of saying : if it's not a sandbox, it's a railroad, is a huge issue of thinking (the Curse of Strahd exemple, CoS isn't a railroad, it's a linear adventure, most published adventure, Even Kingmaker for PF2e, are linear campaign)
I can see what you're saying here, and I love the idea of powerful NPC's and sentient monsters continuing with their plans whether the players engage with them or not. That creates a real, dynamic world. I tend not to use an over-arching storyline in my worlds, but rely on the actions of the players to create one, but I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. Just my preference.
@@DDHomebrew totally agree, the best way to do things is the way both the gm and players enjoy :).
I was just saying that there is a middle ground between pure sandbox and railroad where BBEG still have a good role to play :).
my preference is to have a certain amount of things ( usually around 85% at the start ( like 1st/2nd adventure) and more like 15/20% at the end ) that aren't consequences of my players actions. after all, they are the hero of our game but they aren't the only adventurer in the world ( especially since most of my campaign take place in Golarion or Granzale )
@@VentsongeGaming There's an argument to be made that there's no such thing as a "pure" sandbox, since the GM is setting things up in advance. But it's that balance that is the key.
Sandbox is still box no matter how big it is
Just like in real life: freedom is an illusion.
Maybe
@@jayteepodcast Or maybe not.
I think there is a fundamental disagreement here with your idea of a Sandbox. When I create a playable world for my players, I create the larger picture and then focus on the area in which they operate. For instance, I have a map of the world, key points of interest that have huge impact, like major cities/kingdoms, etc., topography, and massive waterways. In my current campaign, we focused into a major forest that dominates the north-central portion of the map. It's a single player druid campaign. That forest and the map that of that continent is the sandbox, my player can go everywhere and anywhere they want, but I have small 'stories' that the druid is tasked to accomplish. This framework allows the player to have a task to do because, generally, a game with no tasks is boring as hell since essentially you put all the requirement of the fun on the player(s) who, I'd argue, don't know how to find adventure. Plus, I'd also argue that you start an adventure with "you're in a tavern, what do you do?" there is nothing happening, nothing going on, and the full scope of play is on the player's laps with no indicator as to the next step. Very few ever want that situation. You start in media res.
In this case, a hierophant has asked this druid to scout an area of the forest while the rest of the grove has to bother with something else (an violent encroachment of people in the east of the forest.. She now has a task, gets to travel and see more of the forest and encounter all kinds of little tidbits of lore, clues, wonders, and scares.
She completes that, gets tasked with another thing and goes on that mission. While this might feel like railroading at first glance, the player has determined that the druid does want to follow orders, appease the hierophant, and solve the problem of this mission, even though she can go off somewhere else, she has learned some new things, like a reference to a gnome homeland not quite nearby. I added a cleric to help with this current task who has missions of her own that the druid learns a little of. After this mission, the cleric asks the druid to guide her to a known ranger of the woods, she needs a guide to the far north of the forest, the druid can easily follow along and travel north if she wants, the option is totally there. Instead, the ongoing clues in the campaign is that something odd is happening, the couple of hints she has regarding this has put her into a position to decide that she wants to follow that string of information. The player has established that the forest is the druids home and she values that. Something seems like it's threatening her home.
So, I've laid out nuggets of story she can follow for a campaign adventure, there are other threads she can follow to change the entire direction of the campaign and I can place those beats where they need to as she makes decisions. For now, as a DM, I've given her the groundwork for her campaign that she has chosen to follow with the understanding that other things in the world are happening.
When it comes to railroading, generally it's a bad thing because you take away the player agency to feel like they are in control of the story, meaning there is only one solution that the DM has determined is the only solution no matter the player choice - to defeat this boss, she'll have to cast this spell, to get through this obstacle she'll have to wildshape. The DM shouldn't be planning campaigns like that because that's the player's part of the story to figure out how thy succeed or fail something. But, there is nothing wrong with giving them a plot hook or three that they can take or leave as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with giving them a big a story to complete as well, maybe the king has presented a need for adventurers to save the kingdom from a threat and earn a keep and baronship of their own. The players can all agree to do this adventure because it seems like it would be a fun problem to solve. A sandbox should give players many options to pursue but the DM needs to put in plot hooks that give the players choices in where they go and what they get involved in. A linear story can be just as fun, giving the players a clear line on what needs to be done. A west marches campaign can also be just as fun allowing the player to play without much in the way of high stakes or overarching story that they craft. Simply providing missions to find an artifact, discover info, locate a place, whatever is the point of that game, maybe the DM can have an overall story but the players aren't necessarily building it as they go, the DM is. A sandbox isn't just a free-for-all, where the players have to direct the whole show.
I agree with almost everything you say in your description of a sandbox, except where you infer that I'm saying the players have to direct all of the action. Since I set up the world and its personages, I also set up all sorts of plot hooks that the players might follow. And I also to set up multiple plot hooks to give them choices. And I'm charting all of these plot hooks as the players explore the world. Then, after the players have followed through on a partcular storyline, new developments might arise from their actions, which they could follow or ignore, much like your heirophant giving them another task. If you do a good job for someone they'll hire you again!
But, if the players were to ignore the heirophant, there are the other plot hooks I set out, or new ones that have arisen while they were finishing that first task. And so on and so forth. And when they gain renown, it makes sense for a king or high level wizard to ask them for help on a problem. And if there is some dangerous forcing massing out in the wilderness, the players may take it upon themselves to respond. Or they may still go somewhere else! Because once they travel and see all the possible stories I've laid out, I'm always surprised at what they find interesting. And that's the fun of a sandbox!
@@DDHomebrew Got it, that makes sense then. You and I on the same page. We're setting up an adventure with certain things in place and letting the players explore as they progress and decide which plot hooks they bite on. It wasn't clear to me, especially with your description of Curse of Strahd where the entire premise of the story is to defeat Strahd and escape Barovia. And while that game has a particular set up that can be fun and challenging for your players, I understand what you mean about kinda being locked into Barovia and having to deal with the singular main plot hook.
I find, personally, using premade adventures to be hard because of all the extra work I have to put into giving it the freedom I like for my games. They can be great, but I enjoy my stories to be organic from a collaboration with what my players create and what choices they make out of everything they experience within the world.
Thanks for responding, great advice!
@@EpherosAldor It's tough to flesh out thoughts in a 14 minute video, but that's what makes the comments section so great: I'm able to write out what I clearly didn't make obvious in the video!
As I game more, the more i dislike the BBEG villian type. I much rather have several villains, sometimes with conflicting goals. I think it makes the game more interesting by giving the players more options
My thoughts exactly.
I have to disagree with your premise about not having big bad villains. It is impossible not to have them. Example, a Kingdom run by a tyrant, A lich created by an evil cult, a monster from the coastal depths. What I do before a campaign is run the villains a year out. They will do things whether or not the players interact with them. The best way is with a calendar. Every few weeks plan on the villains doing something against an opponent, [not necessarily a player, but a rival kingdom, a rival villain and so on. The players can elect not to encounter them, but the world is changed by their actions or inactions. This isn't railroading, unless you make it untenable for the players to act out their own ideas. The biggest problem with most sandboxes is lack of direction. Create different villains, a monster, a noble, or a event. The monster is good for players who like hack and slash adventures, the Noble is good for those who like to role play and diplomacy and events can be almost anything, like heists, creature hunts, espionage, anything you like. Create a buffet for your players to feast on and they will. You are right that players can make their own villains and allies but that is supplemental until they find their bearings in the world, then you can expand on that. Another point is player backstories. If they have them then you are almost certainly going to use those as potential villains and allies. If your referring to using modules in a sandbox, I can see your point. Without a lot of work, it's certainly possible to have railroading in those cases. Good topic, thanks for sharing.
I like your ideas on creating formidable creatures in the world that the players think of as villains. The lich or powerful monster. And how you run them in your world whether the players interact with them or not. I always create these as well and run them that way. But, I just don't have any of these villains as the necessary ultimate goal of the campaign: they might just become the focus of the player's interests, but maybe not. They may find more potent enemies as they run, and ignore the lich who runs his cult. And that's OK. I don't want to tell them what to do.
@@DDHomebrew Then I have misunderstood you and we both do the same thing. They are there to provide foundation for the players. I totally agree with you in that the players can make enemies from the most inoculate beginnings. One of the most memorable was a fanboy who worshipped the ground the players walked on, but kind of was in there way and the players brushed him off. I let them play for a about a year when this villian starts hiring bounty hunters after the players. You should have seen the look on their faces when they found out it was the fanboy they ignored.
@@jamesrizza2640 It's like Benny from the Bronx in the film Carlito's Way.
Why can't you make faction for those players then they have multiple way to go about destroying, ally with them, or do nothing at its still there choice. With multiple factions they have more choice. This gives them much more choices in my opinion.
Absolutely! I do present plot hooks that could involve the players with an oppostional force. And if they choose to engage in that storyline and make that force aware of them, they'll have trouble!
I realy have to think about this. I GMed a realy sandboxy Blades in the Dark campaign the last 6 months. I showcase some evil NPCs. My players thought that one of them was a BBEG. But he was not. But my players thought he was. And there after they railroaded themselves into defeating him. I still don’t know if that was good or not 🤔 it took away from their freedom of choice for the last third of the game but at least it was their choice.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that players can railroad themselves: they assume "this is the big bad we should go after" so off they go. And it can be a fun campaign, but sometimes when things go bad the players can come back and say "but you wanted us to go after him!"
@@DDHomebrew I will try your approach in the next season of our campaign. I guess we are all too conditioned into thinking there always has to be a big bad evil guy (that wants to end the world) in every story.
@@Frederic_S And there can be! I just like it when they decide to destroy the world to punish the players for what they've done during the course of the campaign. Heh heh.
Heros and Villians are intertwined, a protagonist is only as entertaining and complex as their antagonist. It's fine to create a BBEG character if you're clear about it before the game, as then your players can build characters that would be logical protagonist counterparts.
I'm OK with creating powerful villains at the outset of a campaign, but I want the players to be able to ignore it if they choose. But I'm also away that other GM's feel differently.
@@DDHomebrew Village is very crowded, make a Spot check with exhaust for the number of turns/hours you been there. Lots of sights to keep track of.
The cleric was so busy blessing everyone, he didn't notice Robbin Hood took his ring, .. again.
As he blessed him.
As it is said in action spy movies, lookout people screaming into the security camera,
" He walk just by you, Turn around ! You just missed them!"
And yet in a game situation you never know!
This is GM level 10+, for players still getting usd to GMing, this is way too complicated, it is far easier to start out linnearly and throw in some various things as they come.
I have heard that on occasion, but I'm always hoping even beginners will appreciate my ideas!
@@DDHomebrew Many ideas are appreciated, but sometimes the difference between "Game night tonight!" and silence(at least from my experience) can be "Okay, I prepared this adventure for you. Go too far off the beaten track and we'll get stuck down in the mud", so much to the point that it can feel that the norm is "eh, we tried, it died out, whatever" but we mostly chat about the "yeah we got on like a house on fire for years"
@@gendor5199 I've been there. You have to gauge things by the party.
Hello!
Great to see you here!
You don't understand D&D is largely based on heroic fantasy. The quest to defeat evil also levels the characters. If the players just did whatever they wanted there's no real ademture and no capability to level up. Even milestone x.p. needs some parameters of success.
What you want is improv theater 😂
Literally every sentence in your comment is wrong. Congratulations.
Not sure I've seen a D&D campaign where players could not do what they wanted, but if it works for you go for it.
As a player, what I didn't want is to be forced into a linear, step by step path (the railroad/module). As a GM, I allow the players to go and do whatever they want. If they take a plot hook, there may be a linear path to completion, but they are free to break off and go a different direction and the game goes on. They may even pick up that story line later. Not improve theater, more like real life.