Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 182 - Campaigns Bigger Than the PCs

Episode Date: July 9, 2023

Sometimes it's nice to remind players that not everything in the world revolves around them and they don't have the ability to control everything going on in the world.  If you want the players to realize that sometimes they are small fish in a big pond, run a campaign centered around a war, cataclysm, revolution, or other world-shaping event where the PCs play a small but important role in the outcome.   #dnd #Pathfinder #DMTips #ORCLicense  Resources: Reddit:  World population by class level - https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/ada98w/comment/edgldd3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3  The Flowchart:  https://imgbox.com/uHbbhKgD  Taking 20 Episode 58 - https://taking20.podbean.com/e/ep-58-the-evil-campaign/  

This week on the Taking20 Podcast. The most important thing for the DM to communicate in these types of campaigns is how the player character actions have affected positively or negatively the larger event as a whole. The players need to know that the character's performance had consequences. Thank you for listening to the Taking20 Podcast, episode 182. All about running campaigns like wars and cataclysms and revolutions and disasters that are bigger than the PCs can solve on their own. I want to thank this week's sponsor, Potatoes.

I don't think I've done potato jokes yet. Well, I had my family vote on their favorite part of the potato. The eyes have it. You may be tempted to write me and say, hey, Jeremy, that joke makes no sense. I know it makes no sense. So if you write me, I'll just thank you for the email and refer you to this statement. Please take a moment to like, rate, and subscribe to the podcast wherever you found it. I've been checking the major platforms and I haven't gotten a review for quite a while, so if you wouldn't mind, please take a moment to give me a review. I would greatly appreciate it. Let's face it, most RPG campaigns are pretty simple when you peel the

decorative layers off of them. Find this thing, kill this monster, reclaim this throne, pet this long-haired cow that's secretly plotting the overthrow of Asmodeus. What? Moving on. The PCs are the catalyst, and they have direct control over the success and failure of the entire situation. Christina only becomes queen when the PCs bring back the royal orb, signifying that the throne is hers by divine's right. Divine rights. No, I think the first one. Divine's right, I think is better. Leave a comment if I'm wrong, by the way, a pluralization of that. All I know is Tours de France is the correct pluralization of that.

The road to Neverwinter is made safe again because the PCs slayed the necromancer Latula the Lost. The midnight murders stop because they bring the cult to light and justice. The ending happens because the PCs made it happen. These are campaigns that are the bread and butter of nearly every gaming group, Wizards of the Coast Adventure, Paizo Adventure Path, Third Party Module,

and tons of homebrew games. You can live your entire DM life with variations of campaigns like that where the PCs are the driving force behind everything that happens. However, what if the PCs get caught up in a situation that's so much bigger than they could ever influence? No matter how high of a level they are and how much power they wield in the world, some events in the campaign simply are not in their control. They can't force

everything to a particular ending. They have their part to play, sure, in areas that they can influence, but what if that were limited in scope, smaller in effect, and maybe the PCs are caught into something where they are players, not the main drivers of the end result. Of course, I'm thinking about world-shaping events like wars, cataclysms, revolutions, and disasters. Let's take a large-scale war as an example. I'm going to take an old-school view on the world where there are relatively few people that have any class levels at all. On Reddit, a user named Numex Prism, I believe is how you pronounce it, did the math, and I'm going to include a link in the resources for this episode. He posted that Faerun has a population of about 66 million. Doing the math,

that means there are only about 825,000 people with class levels. So a level one character is in the top 1%-ish of survivability, combat capability, etc. That means a group of level one fighter city guards could be considered like an elite unit by that city. I'm stopping here because I think there's an entire world building episode that could be built from this. Look for that in the future. But based on this information, let's suppose every single soldier in a war is level 1. Not realistic, not practical, because relatively few people in most game worlds have class levels at all. So an army full of level 1 fighters would be extremely powerful.

They likely would roll over most armies in the world, and this would be an extremely effective army. Suppose you had a level 5 fighter weighed into a company of 100 level 1 soldiers. Level 5 characters are much more powerful than their level 1 counterparts. Would the level 5 fighters survive the fight? It's doubtful. If they have about 50 hit points, they could survive an average of about 14 hits by fighters wielding a spear until they fell from their wounds. They get an extra attack, they get action surge once because they're not going to get a rest. They'll be surrounded by 8-ish enemies at a time, each with 10 hit points. It's conceivable that the level 5 fighter could kill two opponents per round, assuming they never miss. Meanwhile, they're getting hit

somewhere about 30 to 40% of the time, or maybe two to three times per round. That means on average, they'll last about six to seven rounds and would have killed 10-15 of the 100 level 1 soldiers. This is all back-of-the-napkin math, I'm just kind of winging this. Don't come at me that this math is wrong. I know it's probably wrong. I'm not taking the time to run all the simulations on this. But even if the 5th level fighter killed 20 foot soldiers before falling, or 30, keep in mind that wars can be fought with thousands or tens of thousands of

foot soldiers. If our level calculations are right, there are only 35 level 5 adventurers in all of Waterdeep. Here's my point. If your band of five level 5 PCs wade directly into a war against troops with commanders that are using a half of an iota of intelligent tactics, the PCs are gonna die without making a meaningful dent in the army. It'd be glorious, I mean fun even, but eventually the party would fall. I'm sure five level 20 characters would last longer and kill a lot more, but how many of those are in your world? There might even be five level 20 characters alive at the same time in the game world. Maybe your players do want to play a game where they're destined to lose.

A lot like roguelike video games like Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Noidus, Polunky, and others. You're probably going to lose. It's just a matter of how and when and how far you make it before you do. If that's what your players want, fire up the grindhouse and let's do this. But not many gaming groups are looking for a game like that. Most of the time, the PCs want to feel like big damn heroes. But Jeremy, I want to run a campaign where the war is a backdrop and have the PCs be a heroic part of it. Good. You should.

I've done it before. Ton of fun. My point is this. The PCs can't take on the entire war like they would clear out a dungeon of a thousand faces. They probably can't direct assault the war into submission. If you're running a campaign with events much bigger than the PCs can take head-on, then what you as the GM need to do is limit the scope of the campaign to something that the PCs can directly influence. limit the scope of the campaign to something that the PCs can directly influence. The key for DMs is to design smaller adventures, tasks, and goals that a small group could be assigned to influence the greater situation. Make the PCs a strike team. Maybe drop them behind enemy lines to disrupt communications or destroy supply lines or assassinate an important enemy combatant.

Give them limited resources or time to figure out how they're going to accomplish their mission, in danger of being found at every turn. I can hear you now. Well, duh, Jeremy, that's what we always do. Good, you're in the right headspace for a campaign backdrop much bigger than the PCs. The PCs are a strike team, an elite missions team, a group who can operate independently of the army and maybe even independently of the government as a whole. Governments love groups like this, because as long as a strike team aren't carrying letters of mark

or equipment clearly tied to the other army or leadership, the government can disavow all knowledge of their existence or mission. I don't know who those people are. They are operating on their own. If you want examples of this from media, think the movie Dirty Dozen. Hang on. I'm old. I would imagine many of my listeners have never seen this slightly dated but very interesting take on an elite strike team. So let's go something a bit more popular and touch more modern. Star Wars. team. So let's go something a bit more popular and touch more modern. Star Wars. The Rebel Alliance was much bigger than Han, Leia, Chewie, Luke, and Lando, and the movies gave you peeks as to the

other parts of the Rebel Alliance that were moving independent of these stars of the movies. As we've seen in recent Star Wars themed media, there were a ton of other groups and leaders operating in an attempt to thwart the Empire. Don't get me wrong, the protagonists of the original trilogy especially were very important cogs in the Rebellion machine, but they were cogs. The success or failure of their actions would have repercussions for Rebellion as a whole, though. Imagine if the shield generator on Endor hadn't been blown up, or Han hadn't been rescued, or the Ewoks hadn't somehow been better fighters than stormtroopers, killing armored, covered enemy soldiers with stone, arrows, and fucking rocks. Jedi was that the original idea was that instead of Ewoks, it was going to be Wookiees. You know, seven foot tall creatures that can rip your arms off, not walking cute little teddy bears that solely existed to sell toys. Okay, I'm going to stop my rant here because I'm in the group that

thinks that Ewoks are so freaking stupid. Anyway, sorry, moving on. Think of your war campaign like that. Design adventures where the PCs have to do the equivalent of shutting down tractor beams and shields on a Death Star while the army's attacking and then getting out of the way before the thing they're on explodes. Or maybe they have to go secure support from a third-party group in their war against an enemy, rescuing important people who've been captured, robbing the military payroll, or assassinating important enemy leaders. If large-scale conflict is inevitable, maybe have the

PCs square off with important enemy lieutenants or generals while the big battle's going on. These missions would still be a part of a big war, yet they're small enough that the PCs have a chance to succeed. The difference between a traditional campaign and one that's much bigger like this is the type of planning needed by the GM. I have had the most success in these types of campaigns by setting up parts of the campaign the PCs can affect and then thinking concretely about how PC actions would positively affect the outcome if they succeed, negatively affect the outcome if they fail, or maybe something in the middle, like success with complication. It becomes a giant decision tree. The PCs must collect intelligence about a weapon being developed by the enemy.

What happens if they succeed versus succeed with complications versus fail outright? Don't overcomplicate things, by the way. Those three options are usually more than enough. Success, success with complications, and failure. For each of these three options, what would be the effects on the campaign as a whole, and what do they lead to next? Do they lead to the same next adventure regardless of the outcome, or do they lead three completely different directions? The most important thing for the DM to communicate in these types of campaigns is how the player character actions have affected, positively or negatively, the larger event as a whole. The players need to know that the character's performance had consequences, even if those consequences are just bonuses to outcome roles for a conflict. They assassinated General Whatserface or Grand Moff Gooberfarts or Lord

Schmuckety Schmuck, and because of that, the opposing army is off balance, takes a penalty, or maybe has part of its fighting force unavailable for a period of time. So, you have a decision tree and all these possible outcomes. You may be able to keep all these decisions and outcomes straight in your head for smaller versions of these types of campaigns, but if you have a longer campaign in mind where there are five, six, or even more different types of adventures, it can be impossible to keep the options and the paths and the possible tasks straight in your head. In this case, I strongly suggest you create a flowchart.

What the hell do you mean, flowchart? Like a forking decision tree or something? Yes, I forking do. In this flowchart, you should detail the adventures the PCs will have and what happens if they succeed or fail. I'm going to try to create a drawing that demonstrates what I mean, by the way. The link will be in the resources so you can follow along if you'd like to. Let's say they accept the adventure to scout the enemy territory at the beginning of the conflict. They have some encounters with an enemy patrol, some fleeing civilians, and maybe some of the local wildlife. They then have to report back to the army they're scouting for. If they succeed,

their army is more prepared for the coming battle, and if they fail, their army is ill-prepared. This diagram, if you're following along, is just a very simple example that I came up with off the top of my head while I was writing the episode. Imagine you had a seven-stage set of adventurers to possibly affect the outcome of the conflict. You can make this as complex or as simple as you would like. My example has basically three layers. Do you want the outcomes of the PC's adventures to result in numeric bonuses like my example? Do that. Do you want the armies to fight differently depending on whether General Talishin is available for the battle? Do that instead.

The point is, you need to have a plan for this campaign so the PCs feel like their actions matter, even if it's only at the fringes of this enormous event. I've spent a lot of time talking about war as a backdrop. These same concepts that I've talked about here, though, could also apply to other enormous things like natural disasters. Imagine the campaign is in Pompeii or the sister city of Herculaneum. I never say that right. or the sister city of Herculaneum. I never say that right. Herculaneum.

Herculaneum. Herculaneum. Let's go with that. In, let's say, 79 AD. Vesuvius is spewing smoke and your entire adventure is to survive and save as many as you can in the next 24 hours. I don't care what kind of characters you're playing. They're not going to stop a mountain from exploding

and wiping out those cities. So what do you do? GMs break it down into smaller adventures. Maybe they have to keep a mercantile fleet from leaving early so they can rescue more people. Maybe they have to go to remote locations and bring those people to the ships. Maybe the disaster happens and they have to dig out from under the rubble, or maybe even find a safe place for civilians to ride out the worst of the disaster. They can't stop the pyroclastic flow, but they can get people out of the way of the worst of the destructive forces of nature. So the list of encounters could be, and this is just spitballing.

One, they have 10 rounds to find a safe place to get to and hide. Two, they have to decide whether to cram too many people in the safe room, putting everyone at risk of running out of resources, or make the tough call to lock people out. Three, they have to collect and dole out resources to trapped personnel. Four, they have to find a way out because the main way is covered in rubble. Five, they have to fight scavengers and those who would take advantage of the disaster. Maybe six, they find other people that are rescued under fallen rubble. Five, they have to fight scavengers and those who would take advantage of the disaster. Maybe six, they find other people that are rescued under fallen rubble, maybe in vaults of their own,

so they have to get them out before they suffocate. Seven, they have to protect the civilians until they can get them someplace safe. Same idea of a flow chart, just different set of circumstances because it's a disaster. The PCs should be able to see the positive and negative outcomes of their successes or failures rather easily in this case. Maybe it ends with the discovery that a fire elemental lord has taken up residence in the volcano and caused the eruption, leading to a campaign that ends at level 16 or 17 to secure equipment and magical assistance to take down that genocidal elemental prick once and for all. Another example of this, by the way, would be something like a prison break.

The PCs are part of a group who were wrongfully imprisoned and the prisoners are starting to clash with the guards to escape. Chances are the unarmed and unarmored PCs aren't going to be able to take on the entire suite of jailers and guards and survive. They could, however, do something like take the warden hostage, threaten to take him out if the prisoners aren't released. Or maybe the PCs could be responsible for mixing chemicals that can weaken the outer wall or fence. Again, show the PCs how their actions affected the greater whole. They see prisoners pouring through the holes in the fence left behind by the PCs, and maybe they see the prisoners in A and B block being released on the closed circuit monitors as they hold the warden hostage. But Jeremy, that kind of sounds evil. Yeah, they're in prison for a crime, right? Run it as an evil campaign. See episode 58 for

more on evil campaigns. There'll be a link in the resources. My last tip is when you're thinking about the flow of how your campaign would progress and designing your flowchart, keep the unused branches secret from your players for two reasons. One, I have a couple of players who are paralyzed by lost opportunities and the possibility that they're not following the path towards the best possible outcome. Two, you could have multiple arrows pointing to the same next event.

And if the players knew that, they could accuse you of taking away their agency. I mean, you're not. You're adjusting the campaign behind the screen to make it better for them and as a result of their successes and failures, hopefully giving them the outcome they deserve. Well, the outcome they deserve.

Well, the outcome that's as good as could be expected when you're trying to, oh, survive a tsunami. Enormous campaigns can be a nice break from your traditional PCs-at-the-center-of-everything type campaigns, where they fetch this, kill that, and they know they are the sole determiners of success or failure of the entire campaign. Consider throwing your PCs into a disaster, a war, or other large-scale event, give them smaller-scale things to resolve with a logical flow, show how their actions affected the greater event, and I'll bet you and your players would have fun doing it.

If you like this podcast, please consider telling your gaming group or posting about it on social media. Alternatively, if you have suggestions for making the podcast better, send them to me via direct message on social media or feedback at taking20podcast.com. Tune in next week when I'll give GMs and players some tips on how you can improve your narration abilities. But before I go, I want to thank this week's sponsor, Potatoes. Did you know that you can iron your clothes with a potato? I mean, you can, but only if you want to use a lot of starch. This has been episode 182, all about running campaigns that are bigger than the PCs.

My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game. The Taking 20 Podcast is a Publishing Cube Media Production. Copyright 2023. References to game system content are copyrighted by their respective publishers.