Any other DMs feel like they fucked up by creating too many mysteries in their campaign for the sake of cliffhangers and over hyped them to the point that no possible reveal / denouement could possibly justify the hype? What did you do / what do you plan to do?
>>98688485I am not JJ Abrams so no.
JJ, is that you? Get back to work.
>>98688485If you introduce a mystery, you need to know the answer at the time at which you introduce it.
>>98688485Mysteries are there so that there's a sense of wonder in something in which people can speculate. You don't always need to answer the mystery, just satisfy curiosity enough to the point where people who are invested can find just a little bit more information if they are very attentive.
>>98688556True. At the very least, you should have a good idea if not a complete one.>>98688485I have, and I stuck the landing. The method is this: diffuse and defuse.Write down all the operating mysteries you have in your game. You can even do with with your players, in a sneaky "hey guys, can you recap your investigations for me, I want to make sure you didn't miss anything cool" way.Next: give yourself private bulletpoint answers to them all, and a notional score on your own coolness scale from 1 to 10. 10 being most cool, 1 being kind of unimportant or not striking to you.Then: Begin solving the mysteries with the lowest scores, on screen, ASAP. Don't rush them, but shuffle them off. Find ways to slot the answers into unplanned moments like random encounters or when the PCs look in containers you didn't detail much. Have NPCs drop the reveal, ideally without them knowing the significance of what they're saying. Enemies reveal traitor's name in dialogue, allies mention offhand seeing that the enemy have a macguffin-replacement-guy. This is the diffusion part, spreading out the impact of any duds among your remaining screen time. Tie up the extraneous loose ends neatly and efficiently.Then: The defuse part. This is where you effectively sever the links on your coolest ideas. Buttress the few coolest reveals with cool loot (the Sword Of Whoever, not a +2 sword) and surround them with the best possible settings to hit big.Finally: the fireworks show. your 10 out of 10s and their cohorts, where you think they can stand alone. Pump the players up with their new 5-9 out of 10 gear and victories. Then slay 'em with the big stuff. Same good practice, but with the real shit reveals. Swing for the fences.
>>98688554>>98688543I didn't want to invoke his name. But yeah basically that kind of shit. I've set up a bunch of mysteries and there is something behind them, and the PCs have had some genuine "oh shit" realizations, but the main antagonists actions still don't have any real justifications beyond the surface level and there are a lot of other mysteries that are contradictory in some way. And it's not some dumbass railroad either, the characters are really invested in the plot and it involves their back stories snd character goals directly, so some copout ending will probably really put a damper on the campaign. Letting some things remain mysterious is probably the only hope, but that also feels like a copout.
>>98688598I think the idea that that cult is ramping up humanity to prepare for the alien phyrexian demons is a cool enough concept
>>98688485You give so many rough hooks that the PCs have no ability to follow them all, then more fully backfill any they are actually interested in while letting the rest die a quiet death.
>>98688595Alright I'll give that a try. Most of their "finds" so far have been linking different loose ends to the main illuminati antagonists, plus learning of a few new factions that are genuinely allied with them. But the illuminatis goals make no sense. It's like G Man in half life, except less omnipotent. And while G man works as an eternally mysterious entity, that's not gonna work when the PCs are actively threatened by these guys actions.Also trying to do the whole "le villains have a point" thing where the PCs are genuinely conflicted about stopping them, has worked so far, but only because they know the illuminati are acting as a safeguard against something even worse. But without defining that their actions will never really make sense. I like the idea of leaving the worse threat as a mysterious or highly symbolic concept, but even with that it just puts more onus on making their actions make sense another way. AND the PCs can't feel conflicted about stopping the illuminati, if they don't know what the illumati is trying to stop from happening.
>>98688485Kool kot
>>98688632OK, before you go ANY further, how long do you want your game to last from this point? In sessions, IRL time.
>>98688617That's basically what the current plot is, yeah. The characters have been dealing with an extra planar invasion on a small scale, as one of the side plots, of devils. But having it be "illuminati cult is trying to prep humanity to defeat the invaders that have been showing up all campaign" feels kind of lame, like it's too obvious. Also the concept of >the illuminati cause chaos,.so that the PCs (chosen ones) have a "baptism by fire" to level them up so they can defeat the even bigger threat Seems retarded. And the concept of>the illuminati cause strife among humanity so that the resulting wars will cause a Tech Level increase so they become capable of fighting the even bigger threatSeems even more contrived and nonsensical and just makes them look like retards, which takes all the emotional weight out of what they did. Or maybe it doesn't? Maybe it makes sense?
>>98688632Make the Illuminati into an ouija board. Most of the rank-and-file members are executing and enacting plans of their superiors, all while assuming that the superiors know what they're doing. But the superiors themselves are secretive and paranoid, tangled up in webs of contradictory and mutually-exclusive rivalries and alliances underpinning their nominal meetings and supposed shared goals. This can even extend downward, with some members of the group thinking that they're undermining their superiors with the support of other high-ranking members of the organization, while those members themselves are issuing orders with the intention of fostering alliances with the supposedly-betrayed superiors. Make the whole thing a nightmare cautionary tale about information control and internal controls, with the actions of the organization being only tangentially related to its nominal goals because those tasked with achieving those goals aren't sure whether they can trust each other.
>>98688649I'm at around 50 sessions right now and the campaign has elapsed about 1 year of in-game time. Another 50 sessions would probably do it.
>>98688658That's not a bad idea. They definitely are a lot like the secret resistance in 1984, the idea that they don't even have a tangible or knowable leadership structure, completely decentralized. But at the same time they somehow have a heiratchy that no one knows beyond 1 or 2 degrees of separation. And mostly 1. Everyone they capture either becomes an hero through Bene Gesserit style psionic suicide, or already has their mind wiped in some way. I don't like doing this but it makes sense for them to have these capabilities, and there are ways around them.
>>98688658To dive into what you were talking about in >>98688655, you could have different high-ranking members of the organization approaching things in different ways.Illuminatus A suggests that Zone of Interest seemed to be attracting extraplanar attention, so perhaps action needs to be taken there. Illuminatus B has gone all-in on the prophecy and so sees it as an opportunity to test his chosen heroes, agreeing emphatically with Illuminatus A. Meanwhile, Illuminatus C disregarded the prophecy as metaphor long ago and so publicly has to feud with Illuminatus B and vote against the action...but he's begun to think that humanity itself needs to be tested and molded, so he clandestinely initiates his own operation in the area. Illuminatus D is suspicious of Illuminatus A's information sources, as he's long suspected A of being in bed with the enemy, and so he sends a few trusted agents out to see whether things are really progressing the way that A reports, but he publicly agrees to A's proposed action--in part so his agents are more likely to catch A's forces in the act. Illuminatus E doesn't give a damn about the organization's goals and just wants to consolidate his own power, so he agrees to the operation but instructs his lieutenant to make sure that things get out of hand so that his forces have justification to sweep in and take control of the situation.What you end up with is a cauldron of fuck ready to boil over at any given moment. The Illuminati's main forces are operating in the area, but the agents of Illuminatus C aren't necessarily privy to the main plan and could push things the wrong way...which the eyes and ears of Illuminatus D would see as evidence to support suspicions of Illuminatus A. Meanwhile, as Illuminatus E's forces gain increasing influence, he finds his tactics rewarded and might well become a major problem that even the other Illuminati realize will need to be dealt with...if only they can agree on how.
>>98688701I like that concept. I don't know if it would make the characters take them less seriously or more seriously, knowing that. The only other thing I'd say is that the illuminati has no forces of their own. Their only ability to inflict violence is to manipulate others into doing so. Their only way to wield wealth is to manipulate others as well (such as manipulating bitter lost-causer dwarves to give millions of gold to find a rebellion). Any assassins are hidden behind seven proxies. I know this sounds like I'm trying way too hard to make these guys sound badass, but the characters are so powerful in combat and magical capabilities at this point that their only chance is to remain hidden and cut all ties to an asset before activating it. The seven proxies analogy is fitting here: the PCs are like the FBI, they cannot be stood up to directly. So yeah disparate goals are good and possibly internal conflict. But they aren't much of an actual organization as it is.
>>98688485I literally cannot imagine how people do that because my entire concept for "creating mystery" is to have the answers and solutions first and then just... not tell what they everything. I don't get it. How do you make a bridge without a river?
>>98688485If you've created mystery without creating the answers first then you're retarded, but also your players don't care about the mysteries. Anything you make that way will be inherently shallow enough no one will give two fucks about the actual answer. You create interest by giving them breadcrumbs. But for breadcrumbs you need to actually have bread. So you've instead told these guys there's some bread probably somewhere and they're just like "alright, cool.... anyway." because why would they care?
>>98688485Funny kot picture!
>>98688556Sometimes you still get too enamoured with it. Things have to uncovered through play unless you want the "game" to become a thinly-veiled loredump. Unexpected snags happen, players pursue weird tangents and some of your "unmissable" core clues turn out to have been poorly placed. I'm just saying that even non-hacks can club execution. I know I have!>>98688570True. GM motivations and player ones are similar yet distinct, the air of unknowable mystery also fits better with some settings more than others imo.>>98688595Seems legit, well done.
>>98688485Once. The players had defeated the main bad guys chief lieutenant and I built up a lot of hype for the boss fight. The fuckers killed him in two turns and it was completely anticlimactic.
>>98688816>I don't get it. How do you make a bridge without a river?Because I don't have notes for campaigns like this. I mean I have lists of NPCs with their roles and descriptions. I have a map of the world. It's not a D&D campaign but the few times we've had something close to a dungeon crawl I made small maps of the rooms on a card. But I don't really have some big sheet of plot. It's all in my head. And while I envisioned an endgame, I didnt know where exactly things would go, so I didn't autistically plan every contingency. So because of that general mindset, some stuff I teased didnt have anything absolutely solid behind it. I liked the idea of "these guys are manipulating history" and kind of left it at that. >>98688829>So you've instead told these guys there's some bread probably somewhere and they're just like "alright, cool.... anyway." because why would they care?I mean, if they don't care, then why even play the game? Gratuitous murder is fun, but if that's all they wanted, we'd just do a mindless dungeon crawl. They definitely do care about the story to an extent. Now, as to whether they stay up all night wondering what the true goals of the mysterious faction are? I highly doubt it. But that doesn't mean that they won't still expect something good that makes SOME amount of sense, and that's where I really have to nail things down. Because I think so far I've been enjoying the flexibility of not having decided exact goals for certain factions, and that's going to come back to bite me. >>98688964>Sometimes you still get too enamoured with it. Things have to uncovered through play unless you want the "game" to become a thinly-veiled loredump.Exactly, and if there's one thing I'll give myself credit for, it's avoiding that. Around half the sessions end with some kind of sizable twist. Something for them to chew on. It's never too surprising, but it's always something that changes how they view the situation.
>>98689654>Because I don't have notes for campaigns like this.If you don't remember at least that much then your players don't and you're being retarded coming and going.>I mean, if they don't care, then why even play the game? probably for the combat or literally any reason besides your retarded fake concept of mystery. You're clearly not actually setting up any real intrigue and they don't pursue it at all, to them it's just flavor or else they find it annoying. So maybe keep notes or stop because goddamn your games sound retarded.
>>98689038Pathfinder or 5e?
>>98689689>no notesNo no I keep detailed session records. I just mean that I don't write down "The Eugenics Faction wants to practice eugenics" because it's something I keep in my mind, and also somewhat nebulously. There is too much detail to their machinations for it to be worth recording everything. And the characters have too much mobility to change entire locales for me to invest too much in any one thing at one time. >You're clearly not actually setting up any real intrigue and they don't pursue it at all, to them it's just flavor or else they find it annoying.Wrong, they have spent hours discussing it at the table. I don't hear them wondering about it out of session, but they are more invested in the intrigue than in any other game I've played in or ran. Is it perfect? No, it's heavily flawed and I think my biggest flaw is actually not blatant enough foreshadowing. But that's a fine line. Because if it's too obvious what's coming, it becomes completely boring.
>>98689708maybe you should should avoid just saying shit to make things sound intriguing when you don't actually have an idea behind it. And maybe if you do end up saying shit because players are pulling a plot thread, that's an a warning sign to take notes then and there mid game.Stop building bridges without rivers.
>>98689735I mean I do take notes on it, and use it to expand the plot threads and concepts in my mind. I can remember the details, I just need to create something fully cohesive.
>>98688543KEK
>>98688485Why are you treating your game as if it's a story?
>>98702388Because it is a story. GNS all exist in your campaign simultaneously. I don't even know what your comment is supposed to mean. Whether or not I care about the coherency of the "plot," I still need to have a source or explanation behind each mystery. Unless you think investigative RPGs like Call of Cthulhu and Gumshoe don't exist?
>>98704329>Unless you think investigative RPGs like Call of Cthulhu and Gumshoe don't exist?Never seen one and the people who claim to have seen them are clearly deranged so no.
>>98704498I've played the former multiple times with multiple people. But okay yeah you're trolling thanks for making that clear and thanks for the necrobump after I was gone all weekend.
>>98704588I hope you had a pleasant weekend anon.
>>98704329Nope.
>>98706403Not an argument fuckstain.
>>98706790Not a story bitch :)
>>98706794It is a story, faggot.
>>98706815Nope you lose :)
>>98706816You're the one still replying to my thread.
>>98706850Nope you lose reply if I win :)
one final bump, curious if anyone else has anymore advice.
>>98688485Tell me your situation. I'm a pretty good writer. I can fix all your knots
>>98688632>>98688655>the illuminati cause chaos,.so that the PCs (chosen ones) have a "baptism by fire" to level them up so they can defeat the even bigger threat This can absolutely work as a goal. The problem usually isn't how retarded an idea is but rather how you can make it meaningful to the players and how you can frame to conflict in a way that makes it so that it seems like an obvious conflict of interest between the antagonists and the players to the point where a conflict seems almost inevitable.Basically if you want to make an antagonist's goals feel not contrived you have to make it so that their confrontation with the players are a natural outcome of the goals you set up. Do you have any idea why the players are opposing the villains? Do the villains have any reason to get into a conflict with the players specifically? Is there any conflict of interest there?The other part I said is making it meaningful, which you don't have to usually do, but is one of the most straightforward ways to pay something big off. Basically it means having the culmination reveal something that the players take back into the real world after the game is over. It doesn't have to be something elaborate or revolutionary, just a different way of looking at the world can be enough. Like for example you could have the plan of the Illuminati end up being a case study of what happens when negligence and inaction let a situation grow out of control over time. Like for example, the illuminati's original purpose was to protect the world from whatever is invading it, but they became so passive and negligent that it grew out of control, and now they have to drag the entire world into it to do their dirty work since they are no longer enough to deal with the demons all on their own
>>98710331>I can fix all your knotsH-hot...
>>98710921>Like for example, the illuminati's original purpose was to protect the world from whatever is invading it, but they became so passive and negligent that it grew out of control, and now they have to drag the entire world into it to do their dirty work since they are no longer enough to deal with the demons all on their ownThat's interesting. Probably something they'd only learn from a final confrontation monologue, but that's okay. The illuminatis "real" motivation is mainly that they feel like they are entitled to be authors of history. They have goals but they believe they are steering toward a greater good. It's somewhat important that they have no masters above themselves.
>>98710331Basically the main issue is that the master antagonists goals don't really make sense. They:>turn different noble houses against each other>fund rebellions and assassins>all claiming that this is helping to prepare the world for a dreadful apocalypse >while also implying that the main PC, a DaVinci type artificer and inventor, is going to cause an apocalyptic event of his own, through a magitech industrial revolution >the best fit for this to make sense currently, is that it was done to give him a reason to invent stuff (which he was already doing anyway because he likes to), so that he invents it faster, so that it can be used against the apocalyptic invasion threat. >except none of that makes sense>spending millions of gold to fund a contrived civil war instead of just giving him the gold in some surreptitious way, is overly convoluted and doesn't make any sense for what are supposed to be 200p IQ individuals.
>>98714989It makes sense if you consider that people are complicated and it's really not always possible to convince someone to do something for an abstract reason even if you give them all the resources in the world. For example, most of the modern technology we use can trace some kind of origin from military equipment. War is one of the biggest motivators for technological development. One possibility is that the Illuminati originally had an in-house R&D team that was developing what they needed but they messed up somehow or were put in harm's way and now they are all dead, so the Illuminati are falling back on their backup plan which is the sole inventor, and they have to put him under real pressure to force him to do the impossible for them on a tighter schedule than they originally had
>>98715098Does it really make sense to start a civil war to accomplish just that though?I also figured another explanation for doing it would be to weed out weak and complacent leaders, as well as lead to the fall of arristocracy in general and the rise of a democracy and republics.This would fit in well because the inventor PC is also a nobleborn who hates the concept of nobility, so it would make it much easier for them to sway him into seeing their side if he knew they were trying to undo power structures he despised (despite benefiting from them, he always tries to use his privilege to help the common man). And he would be angry they killed so many people to do it, but they might just say>no revolution is bloodless, inventoranon And he would have to face the villains embodying a major part of his characters ideology. Idk if that's actually any good though. Alternatively, they're just deluded brave new world great reset types trying to create some communist utopia by collapsing society.
>>98714989>>98715127I think >>98688658 had the right of it. If you can't make all the goals and methods line up perfectly in your head, the solution might be that these 2 billion IQ puppetmasters are factionalized and the actual actions taken by their organization are the compromises that they're able to agree on. Sets you up quite nicely to have a combination of unrepentant bastards, genuine true believers, and pragmatists that your party can deal with in different ways.
>>98715127I didn't say that it's impossible to convince the PC to do what they want, I said that it's very likely it's impossible to motivate him to accomplish all that on a specific timeline if they're just straightforward with him. Big difference. Maybe they get him on board, and then what? What if he works suboptimally if he doesn't have immediate obstacles to overcome or applied problem solving to do? That pressure can force him to do something that would otherwise be impossible or very slow to accomplish
>>98715185I guess that's true. It's one of those things where I have the idea, and it arguably makes sense, it's just really hard to force myself to accept it without it seeming ridiculous. But that helps. So them starting a war to speed up his inventions makes sense? Even if the war ended up ending thanks to his military heroism before he finished his inventions (and he finished them right afterward, proving them wrong)?>>98715167Yeah I agree. I think my hesitance with it is just because I'm hesitant to humanize the illuminati at all. They're all mundane humans (albeit with psychic powers) but they're almost meant to be representatives of ideology than actual people. However I accept that that's kind of retarded.
>>98715322>So them starting a war to speed up his inventions makes sense? Even if the war ended up ending thanks to his military heroism before he finished his inventions (and he finished them right afterward, proving them wrong)?Yes, because it doesn't matter if he proves them wrong. They did what they did because they calculated that they can't afford to take that risk
>>98715340So that would imply that the apocalyptic event needs to happen very soon, right?
>>98715322>I'm hesitant to humanize the illuminati at allwasn't that your idea to begin with? what exactly do you consider "humanizing" and what are you trying to avoid?
>>98715347soon enough that they don't have any good alternative options or maybe don't have any alternatives at all
>>98715322>>98715347also if you haven't revealed the apocalyptic war/event yet and are planning to hold off on the reveal you could tease it by introducing some people who believe in it happening but are not presented or treated seriously so they come across as wacky "comic relief". That's just in case you have no other way to foreshadow it too far prior
Just leave some things as mysteries and keep them that way or use them as bait for future campaigns. In real life you don't get everything shoveled at you on a conveyor belt slopfeed like Disney does with Star Wars. Things kinda just go on. You never see that cute girl you talked to on the bus again and never solve the deep mystery behind the apparently haunted house your parents rented for a few years when you were kid. Random pic for attention.
>>98715353>wasn't that your idea to begin with?No, it's more to give their plot internal consistency in case the PCs ever do corner the plot, so to speak, and it doesn't look like the entire campaign was le whacky random. >>98715378>>98715361Ill take this into consideration. There's a minor extra planar invasion going on as a side plot, but I'm hesitant to link the apocalypse to that. Although I kinda like the idea that the extra planar invasion is the invaders fleeing the apocalyptic invasion that already attacked their home plane. Something like MTG phyrexians, but even worse.
>>98715439That's a good point and I don't necessarily plan on revealing it. I just need to make sure I'm not contradicting myself too much. And we all know how modern game mechanics like to give PCs divination powers that makes them feel entitled to get the entire plot lore dumped to them or else some YouTuber tells them they're being "punished" But even aside from that, I don't know where the game will go and I'd like to be ready.
