Because the characters have access to magic, something as
simple as casting a spell can lead to unexpected changes in direction. They
also afford the players opportunity to impact the setting. It isn’t far-fetched
for players who choose their spells wisely to end up taking over a city or
dethroning a king, for example.
Sertori (spell casters) are powerful in Gamandria. As they
gain experience and grow a following, their power only increases. With the
right spells, characters can drastically shift the setting and campaign focus if they put their mind to it. Our initial
response to this was to dampen spell effects and place greater limits on their
effectiveness. But over time we realized the more you do that, the more you
risk losing the spark that makes magic so special. So we focused more on
adapting to developments arising from spell use.
While playtesting Sertorius, we noticed the game works best
when the GM remains adaptable to campaign developments. And I think the word
developments is crucial here. It ties in with how I’ve always run games like
Crime Network: as characters make choices, this potentially shifts the
direction of the campaign. With Sertorius, adhering to that play philosophy has
been what makes our own games successful. We found that the less you worry
about campaign arcs and the more you focus on campaign developments, the more
you’ll enjoy Sertorius.
What’s the difference? A campaign arc would be having a
beginning and final destination in mind when you establish your campaign. Not
necessary a railroad, but just a sense of where things will go. Development is
more about taking things on a case by case basis, not worrying where they are
going in the end, instead placing your focus on where the campaign is, what
just happened and how that may have changed things. The GM may have anticipated
the players would arrive in Talyr and answer King Tauq’s request to help him
solve a great mystery in the city.
Instead the characters use Captivation to lead King Tauq to a place
where his guards can’t protect him, then kill him by casting Avalanche of
Flame, Splintering of Yaum and Bolt of Fury then take over Talyr. Yes that
disrupts the GM’s initial premise, and on first glance appears to stop the
campaign in its tracks, but it is also genuinely interesting and logically
leads to a number of new developments. A
GM might be tempted to resist the perfectly legitimate use of Captivation,
because he wants to protect Tauq and his plot, but there is no need. By killing King Tauq the party made your job
as GM easier, because you have a whole premise for a campaign right there. That
can lead to months and months of exciting sessions.
The important thing is to remember there are always greater
threats out there. The party that takes Tauq’s crown and establishes a new rule,
now contends with the challenges of running a city as others seek to undermine
their position or thwart their authority. And the presence of other groups of
Sertori in the setting, who may also be eager to govern Talyr, complicates
things further.
This applies to other adventure structures as well. The key
is Sertori have the potential to “break the scenery” to smash through physical,
social and political barriers in ways other people in the setting cannot. So
the GM either needs to account for this in his designs, or as we press for
here, adapt and not resist legitimately won victories or developments.
In one of our playtests, the characters went back in time to
change the present. It required access to a rare power in the game, but once
obtained, the GM had to adjust accordingly. In that particular case it led to
an even more interesting campaign.
Next week: Followers in Sertorius
No comments:
Post a Comment