How to do a doomed, "Halo Reach" type game?

[Theo R Cwithin]

It does seem hard to make a "doomed to fail" game work, at least for an entire campaign. On the other hand, as the opening story arc of a larger campaign it seems doable-- for certain players at least.

The extreme case would be start off the game with a TPK, (albeit a heroic one), but the opening "dommed" phase could be stretch out to several sessions before the Fates crack down for good. Then the remainder of the campaign is other characters dealing with the aftermath or historical ramification of that opening TPK. Ideally, this aftermath phase of the campaign also resounds with "echoes" of the original characters, if only to bind the two groups together (and provide the GM with hooks grown from seeds planted by the first set of characters).

Of course, players would have to be on board from the get go for something like this.

 

[jasonbostwick]

I'm not sure if it would work as the focus of an entire campaign, but I think a 'Reach' style plot can work well as a one-off. I once ran a one-shot Normal-Vision session where the players played doomed Paladins defending their high priest from an overwhelmingly powerful assassin.

[sblock=Minor Ptolus Spoiler] I used Monte Cook's "Black Rain" adventure in Ptolus, with Helmut Itlestein killing Emperor Rehoboth after Lothian's clerics lost their divine connection[/sblock]

The players were aware that their characters were doomed, but they got a lot of excitement out of every minor-victory they had before they were finally destroyed. Against my expectations they managed to sunder a powerful evil artifact, changing the game world significantly when they resumed control of their normal characters.


I think that for the 'doomed from the start' campaign to work, the players might have to have some greater connection to the setting beyond that campaign. Halo Reach works because the player already knows the outcome of the entire war against the Covenant.

For the same thing to work in an RPG, I think the campaign would need to be set in the past of a setting the players are familiar with.

Another option would be for a follow-up campaign. Like the_orc_within suggests, it would be cool for the players to see how despite their loss, the actions of their characters had some long-term impact on the gameworld.

 

[Celebrim]

As I understand it, the whole Halo: Reach single player campaign can be played in a single session - 6 to 8 hours.

I would suggest that an PnP RPG session of 6 to 8 hours could be played to a tragic conclusion successfully, but that the normal sort of RPG campaign could not.

IMC, we are now like 9 or 10 sessions into the game, done about 20 combats, and have had about 50 hours worth of play time (including 3 or 4 sessions of basically pure RP). And yet, this is really only the beginning of the story. The full campaign might go go 60 or so more additional sessions, and eventually involve 300+ hours of gameplay. That's a huge investment in time and emotion into not just a game, but potentially a single character that you self-identify with.

Halo: Reach may have a good story, but its about like watching a character from a book die. In Halo: Reach you've barely got to know the characters, and you are not emersed in their story to the same degree because all the story development is something you watch happen not something you create yourself.

I just don't think it is comparable. Video games are more emersive and interactive than television (but what isn't?), but as vehicals for a story they are still something you largely just watch. You don't have the same degree of self-authorship that you have in a PnP RPG.

Most people don't want to write their characters to a tragic ending. They certainly don't want to write themselves to a failure. Not after investing that much time in a game. Not after investing that much care in a character.

 

[AngryMojo]

One thing you can do, if the PC's understand that the campaign is basically unwinnable, is to shift the goalposts a bit. Maybe their goal, when they realize they can't beat the ultimate bad guy, is to minimize the damage dealt, or possibly hit him hard enough that he can be taken out at a later date.

For example, when you know the planet is going to be overrun with horrible monsters, maybe the PC's lead a valiant last stand to protect the evacuees, and get as many people to safety as they can.

Or, if it's some super-baddie trying to take over the world by attaining godhood, maybe the PC's damage his power source, so he has a weakness that other generations can exploit.

The greatest sacrifices are for reasons other than victory, and that way lies true heroism.

 

[Odhanan]

*stops after reading the first few words* ARGH NO! No spoilers! I haven't received the game yet!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Isn't Space Hulk a game where the characters are doomed? I found that fun as heck. Going in to it I had a good idea the point was to last as long as possible., not that I would win by killing everything.

 

[green slime]

IMX, heroes don't mind dying meaningful (campaign affecting) deaths that actually make for memorable experiences. Its the pointless deaths against some minor foe or trap that grate a player.

As long as the goal was worthwhile, the foe important, and battle epic, there is meaning in the sacrifice.

TPK vs Arch Dragon & Dragonlord Nemesis in a battle in the courtyard of the capitol of the ruined kingdom, where hordes of minion are scattered to wind, and the dragonlord himself wounded & his armies weakened: Epic.

Accidental TPK vs marauding bandits (The Dice are cursed!) on way to aforementioned capitol.... not so epic.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

IMX, heroes don't mind dying meaningful (campaign affecting) deaths that actually make for memorable experiences. Its the pointless deaths against some minor foe or trap that grate a player.

As long as the goal was worthwhile, the foe important, and battle epic, there is meaning in the sacrifice.

I think this is a great point. Make there be an important objective that needs to be accomplished even though it's a suicide mission. I think many players would be okay with making that sort of heroic sacrifice--especially since it would be at the end of the campaign anyway.

But I'd give the players a sales pitch to get their impressions and make sure they're on board.

 

[Umbran]

PCs don't ahve to have the full, unmitigated win, They just have to have an impact. As you state about the game - the fact that the planet is doomed doesn't mean the Spartan's actions have no meaning. Same goes for the PCs.

The goal may not be to stop the doom, but to mitigate it. For example, if the planet is doomed, make sure some survive. Or make sure the enemy cannot take other worlds, or something similar.

 

[Baron Opal]

During our conversation, we also realized that this "Reach" style plotline WOULD NOT work in an RPG setting, for the most part. The reasoning being - a campaign that assumes the PCs will lose is not a fun one, even if they know in advance that it's a lost cause.

I think you can as long as the players can feel a sense of accomplishment in their endurance. "We survived the goblins, the orcs, the ogres and the minotaurs. We're so clever it took the giants to wipe us out!"

Beyond that, not so much. It could work to set the stage for a later campaign, but how many sessions would you want to spend on that?