Eberron Campaign [Archive] - Wizards Community

Eberron Campaign [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Raust92
04-18-07, 05:18 PM Hello, I have recently just have gotten the eberron campaign setting. In doing so I am working on my dungeon. So I was wondering... You see I was thinking that what if one of the PC's were to betray the rest of the party near the end of our campaign. I know this is awhile into the future, but it just came to me today. You see I would lead my party to the devil wastes where they would find out that one of the PC's the next in line in his family to inflict war on eberron by being a general. By doing this he will secretly level up of course. Then the PC will unreveal himself to the party and thrash out his rage on them. Of course the PC will have an army full of minions in which will enflict complete wrath upon the campaign all of these minnions would be at least CR 20 and higher. I told the PC this the other day, and instead of considering it he said this. "I got an idea why don't I just tell the whole party at first level that I am indeed a vilan at 1st level. "Then I could be your assistant DM and control armies of minons at your devise". This sounding like the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my life I want to see what you think on both of the ideas...
Cloud Divider
04-18-07, 05:52 PM It can go one of two ways:

1) End in flames and leave your campaign a smouldering husk.
2) Be enormously awesome.

Whether it's (1) or (2) is very, very dependent on how you handle it as GM, and how well your players will deal with it (and importantly, how they'll deal with the turncoat - both the PC and the player).

(1) will happen if the GM handles it poorly (you've got the dramatic elements...it should be foreshadowed, it shouldn't be a "gotcha" moment, and the player of the turncoat needs to be cool with "ending" his control of that character at the point of treason, etc). Furthermore, the fine details of the social relationship/interactions between your players will have a major effect. Is the guy who'd be the turncoat able to be considered a "favorite" of the GM? Will the other players take it too seriously? Will it cause unnecessary friction (and thus get in the way of the "fun" for the group as a whole)? In the dozen or so groups I've GM'd for in the last decade-change, there's some groups that I'd definitely NOT try this with, because it would have ended poorly for the reasons I've cited. Other groups, on the other hand, might have been much more amenable to exploring that kind of drama... It could kill the group, and it most certainly could kill the campaign off.

(2) will take a very deft hand - you're sailing in dangerous waters for all the reasons I mentioned in the last paragraph. However, you've got the makings of some SERIOUS drama there. And that can be really awesome to play through. You've got conflicting loyalities (you've got your proto-villain...and he's been hanging with the other PC's for some time...will he screw them all over to fulfill his larger goals?). You've got potential for a redemption arc (Turncoat did do something to screw over everyone else...but he's had an epiphany, and is now trying to redeem himself). There's a LOT of neat potential there. Some early foreshadowing will help keep the inevitable betrayal from seemingly coming out of left field would be beneficial. So yeah, there's a lot of really neat potential there.

That said, as far as advice goes - I'd strongly recommend that the traitor PC becomes an NPC at the point of treason (unless you intend on exploring the redemption arc). Having one PC fight off the other PCs rarely ends well for party dynamics - I've seen my share of bad blood spilled in game groups because of it (that did actually kill an otherwise phenomenally successful and long-running campaign) because of it. So if you do turn the Traitor PC into an NPC, you'll need some kind of solution/alternate character for the player to insert as his replacement (I've seen the latter done well, especially when the substitute's already been introduced as an NPC).

On the second subject: Player as co-GM... If you want to go that route, fine. But make it REALLY clear at the outset, that he's co-GM, and under no circumstances is he a player. The dynamic for him will be totally different compared to the other players. He doesn't get the same kind of screen-time that the other PC's do (whether you take up the Villain NPC's activities that happen off-camera offline/email/independently or not is up to you...regardless, unless the other PC's are participating, none of it gets resolved at the table). He doesn't just get to act as a spoiler to the players - just like you, his job is to ensure that the other players have fun. If that means he's got to build/play flawed villains, henchmen and plots, so be it. If he's cool with that change in dynamic - then you're golden.

My two crowns. Do with them what you will.
Raust92
04-19-07, 04:50 PM I have approached the pc today. I said to him that it's off, this whole entire idea is off. I am the DM I can do whatever I want in the campaign.
Cloud Divider
04-20-07, 06:21 PM I have approached the pc today. I said to him that it's off, this whole entire idea is off. I am the DM I can do whatever I want in the campaign.
That latter point is an important truth (though a corollary is that your players can vote with their feet as well). It's important to stand up for yourself as GM when it's necessary.

I hope I didn't scare you off by posting in my "DOOM!" voice. What's important though, is that you're happy with the decision.

I'm a bit oversensitive on the subject of major intraparty conflict, having made The Big Mistake before. I had a PC get taken over by a cursed artifact and go to town on the other PCs...it was foreshadowed, and there were numerous occasions to stop it. But the problem was that the player of the cursed PC enjoyed his thorough stomping of the rest of the party too much (the player and character were a bit arrogant before they had genuine full-on ammunition). That campaign (which had been running for about 40 sessions prior) pretty much died permanently about two sessions later, with massive plot elements left unresolved. What annoys me most, is up to that point, it was probably one of the best campaigns I'd ever run. And certainly the longest lived... The group more-or-less stayed together, but there were notable tensions between the player of the cursed guy and one or two of the other players, even after we'd moved to new game systems/campaigns... But "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." We had drama, redemption, etc. But it blew up in my face...

So I pay a LOT more attention to the social/behavioral side of the game group as much as I do the actual campaign itself. (side note: the socio-psychological dynamics of a game group would be pretty interesting to look at...there's the normal social group dynamics, but there's a few other unusual dynamics as well.)

There's scads of stories you can tell in Eberron. I'm sure there's others that are much more suitable to your group as a whole (gaming is, after all, a GROUP activity).

Also, one other piece that comes out of that, is that the point of gaming is to have fun. You, as GM, are also entitled to have fun. And a happy GM is better for everyone - if he's enthusiastic about the game, it means burnout is MUCH less likely. Once the GM stops having fun, GMing starts feeling like a job ("gah! I've got to build ANOTHER pile of NPC villains, their fortress, and some goofy story to justify it all?"), the game suffers (or ends altogether as the GM burns out).

That said, if the player is still interested in a storyline like that, there are alternative routes. Perhaps you could have a villainous (minor) NPC that you and he can brainstorm plots on - but that's all done outside of the game session (ie chats on the bus home, or over lunch, etc). Naturally, you never actually run things exactly as you'd discussed...where's the fun in that? :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Raust92 04-18-07, 05:18 PM	Hello, I have recently just have gotten the eberron campaign setting. In doing so I am working on my dungeon. So I was wondering... You see I was thinking that what if one of the PC's were to betray the rest of the party near the end of our campaign. I know this is awhile into the future, but it just came to me today. You see I would lead my party to the devil wastes where they would find out that one of the PC's the next in line in his family to inflict war on eberron by being a general. By doing this he will secretly level up of course. Then the PC will unreveal himself to the party and thrash out his rage on them. Of course the PC will have an army full of minions in which will enflict complete wrath upon the campaign all of these minnions would be at least CR 20 and higher. I told the PC this the other day, and instead of considering it he said this. "I got an idea why don't I just tell the whole party at first level that I am indeed a vilan at 1st level. "Then I could be your assistant DM and control armies of minons at your devise". This sounding like the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my life I want to see what you think on both of the ideas...
Cloud Divider 04-18-07, 05:52 PM	It can go one of two ways: 1) End in flames and leave your campaign a smouldering husk. 2) Be enormously awesome. Whether it's (1) or (2) is very, very dependent on how you handle it as GM, and how well your players will deal with it (and importantly, how they'll deal with the turncoat - both the PC and the player). (1) will happen if the GM handles it poorly (you've got the dramatic elements...it should be foreshadowed, it shouldn't be a "gotcha" moment, and the player of the turncoat needs to be cool with "ending" his control of that character at the point of treason, etc). Furthermore, the fine details of the social relationship/interactions between your players will have a major effect. Is the guy who'd be the turncoat able to be considered a "favorite" of the GM? Will the other players take it too seriously? Will it cause unnecessary friction (and thus get in the way of the "fun" for the group as a whole)? In the dozen or so groups I've GM'd for in the last decade-change, there's some groups that I'd definitely NOT try this with, because it would have ended poorly for the reasons I've cited. Other groups, on the other hand, might have been much more amenable to exploring that kind of drama... It could kill the group, and it most certainly could kill the campaign off. (2) will take a very deft hand - you're sailing in dangerous waters for all the reasons I mentioned in the last paragraph. However, you've got the makings of some SERIOUS drama there. And that can be really awesome to play through. You've got conflicting loyalities (you've got your proto-villain...and he's been hanging with the other PC's for some time...will he screw them all over to fulfill his larger goals?). You've got potential for a redemption arc (Turncoat did do something to screw over everyone else...but he's had an epiphany, and is now trying to redeem himself). There's a LOT of neat potential there. Some early foreshadowing will help keep the inevitable betrayal from seemingly coming out of left field would be beneficial. So yeah, there's a lot of really neat potential there. That said, as far as advice goes - I'd strongly recommend that the traitor PC becomes an NPC at the point of treason (unless you intend on exploring the redemption arc). Having one PC fight off the other PCs rarely ends well for party dynamics - I've seen my share of bad blood spilled in game groups because of it (that did actually kill an otherwise phenomenally successful and long-running campaign) because of it. So if you do turn the Traitor PC into an NPC, you'll need some kind of solution/alternate character for the player to insert as his replacement (I've seen the latter done well, especially when the substitute's already been introduced as an NPC). On the second subject: Player as co-GM... If you want to go that route, fine. But make it REALLY clear at the outset, that he's co-GM, and under no circumstances is he a player. The dynamic for him will be totally different compared to the other players. He doesn't get the same kind of screen-time that the other PC's do (whether you take up the Villain NPC's activities that happen off-camera offline/email/independently or not is up to you...regardless, unless the other PC's are participating, none of it gets resolved at the table). He doesn't just get to act as a spoiler to the players - just like you, his job is to ensure that the other players have fun. If that means he's got to build/play flawed villains, henchmen and plots, so be it. If he's cool with that change in dynamic - then you're golden. My two crowns. Do with them what you will.
Raust92 04-19-07, 04:50 PM	I have approached the pc today. I said to him that it's off, this whole entire idea is off. I am the DM I can do whatever I want in the campaign.
Cloud Divider 04-20-07, 06:21 PM	I have approached the pc today. I said to him that it's off, this whole entire idea is off. I am the DM I can do whatever I want in the campaign. That latter point is an important truth (though a corollary is that your players can vote with their feet as well). It's important to stand up for yourself as GM when it's necessary. I hope I didn't scare you off by posting in my "DOOM!" voice. What's important though, is that you're happy with the decision. I'm a bit oversensitive on the subject of major intraparty conflict, having made The Big Mistake before. I had a PC get taken over by a cursed artifact and go to town on the other PCs...it was foreshadowed, and there were numerous occasions to stop it. But the problem was that the player of the cursed PC enjoyed his thorough stomping of the rest of the party too much (the player and character were a bit arrogant before they had genuine full-on ammunition). That campaign (which had been running for about 40 sessions prior) pretty much died permanently about two sessions later, with massive plot elements left unresolved. What annoys me most, is up to that point, it was probably one of the best campaigns I'd ever run. And certainly the longest lived... The group more-or-less stayed together, but there were notable tensions between the player of the cursed guy and one or two of the other players, even after we'd moved to new game systems/campaigns... But "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." We had drama, redemption, etc. But it blew up in my face... So I pay a LOT more attention to the social/behavioral side of the game group as much as I do the actual campaign itself. (side note: the socio-psychological dynamics of a game group would be pretty interesting to look at...there's the normal social group dynamics, but there's a few other unusual dynamics as well.) There's scads of stories you can tell in Eberron. I'm sure there's others that are much more suitable to your group as a whole (gaming is, after all, a GROUP activity). Also, one other piece that comes out of that, is that the point of gaming is to have fun. You, as GM, are also entitled to have fun. And a happy GM is better for everyone - if he's enthusiastic about the game, it means burnout is MUCH less likely. Once the GM stops having fun, GMing starts feeling like a job ("gah! I've got to build ANOTHER pile of NPC villains, their fortress, and some goofy story to justify it all?"), the game suffers (or ends altogether as the GM burns out). That said, if the player is still interested in a storyline like that, there are alternative routes. Perhaps you could have a villainous (minor) NPC that you and he can brainstorm plots on - but that's all done outside of the game session (ie chats on the bus home, or over lunch, etc). Naturally, you never actually run things exactly as you'd discussed...where's the fun in that? :)