Why no beating the setting?

[K]

OK, so there are a lot of reasons to RPG. It's fun and blows off steam, it's an excuse to hang out with buds, and people get to flex their imaginations as player or DM.

The thing I wonder about is whether people are playing against the setting or the game.

I mean, people want to accomplish goals in the game. They want to get the story of being the guys who killed the dragon terrorizing Winterhaven. In that sense they are playing against the setting, and they want to "win" against the setting and see changes brought by their actions.

In another sense, they are playing against the game. They want to build a character and know the tactics to kill the dragon, and the fun comes in figuring out new tactics and pushing the limits of your character and your luck. Various XP systems let you "win" this aspect of the game.

In the worse games, you are playing against the DM. He's constantly ratcheting up the difficulty, so all success vs the setting or the game are temporary at best.

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

Like "kill X CR of monsters in this area, become the lord of this area" or "this enemy organization has X threats in it, and if you kill them they fall apart."

I know this is very video-game-ish, and it constrains DM creativity somewhat, but it also creates an alternate method of feeling rewards in an RPG.

Thoughts?

[KingOfIllefarn]

OK, so there are a lot of reasons to RPG. It's fun and blows off steam, it's an excuse to hang out with buds, and people get to flex their imaginations as player or DM.

The thing I wonder about is whether people are playing against the setting or the game.

I mean, people want to accomplish goals in the game. They want to get the story of being the guys who killed the dragon terrorizing Winterhaven. In that sense they are playing against the setting, and they want to "win" against the setting and see changes brought by their actions.

In another sense, they are playing against the game. They want to build a character and know the tactics to kill the dragon, and the fun comes in figuring out new tactics and pushing the limits of your character and your luck. Various XP systems let you "win" this aspect of the game.

In the worse games, you are playing against the DM. He's constantly ratcheting up the difficulty, so all success vs the setting or the game are temporary at best.

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

Like "kill X CR of monsters in this area, become the lord of this area" or "this enemy organization has X threats in it, and if you kill them they fall apart."

I know this is very video-game-ish, and it constrains DM creativity somewhat, but it also creates an alternate method of feeling rewards in an RPG.

Thoughts?

I think that is a (qualified) great idea. It might be video gamey depending on the way you track your success. Actually, the video gamey part is the standard game setting where the PCs actions have little or no effect on anything. It's like in WoW, where you take quests to defeat certain enemies, and after you do you are lauded as a hero.....but they just respawn, and if you swing by you can see them going about their business. Now, this is because of the need to share the world with....the rest of the world! so that other PCs can defeat the baddie and be lauded as a hero. Except, in a tabeltop game with your friends, you don't have to share the setting with anyone!

I have a long running game group with a sandboxish game in the Forgotten Realms, and I find that we do this as well, totally subconsciously "preserving" the setting's "integrity". I don't know why. We've talked about it. And we still do it. I think, because it is a HUGE commercially shared world, we somehow feel we don't have the "right" to kill off the Zhentarim leadership, or destroy the Drow city. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if it doesn't show a mistrust of the verisimilitude of a setting. If you kill off the Zhentarim leadership you start to wonder "why didn't the Seven Sisters do this DECADES AGO?" So, maybe it is a way of preserving what intrigued us in the first place with a given published setting.

Now, of course, better DMs than I don't have these problems. They go for it, and have a richer experience I imagine. But I think I'm on to something here. I shall have to try to be more reckless when I DM.

Sorry for the massive brainstorm, I was thinking as I wrote.

[Zinegata]

OK, so there are a lot of reasons to RPG. It's fun and blows off steam, it's an excuse to hang out with buds, and people get to flex their imaginations as player or DM.

The thing I wonder about is whether people are playing against the setting or the game.

I mean, people want to accomplish goals in the game. They want to get the story of being the guys who killed the dragon terrorizing Winterhaven. In that sense they are playing against the setting, and they want to "win" against the setting and see changes brought by their actions.

In another sense, they are playing against the game. They want to build a character and know the tactics to kill the dragon, and the fun comes in figuring out new tactics and pushing the limits of your character and your luck. Various XP systems let you "win" this aspect of the game.

In the worse games, you are playing against the DM. He's constantly ratcheting up the difficulty, so all success vs the setting or the game are temporary at best.

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

Like "kill X CR of monsters in this area, become the lord of this area" or "this enemy organization has X threats in it, and if you kill them they fall apart."

I know this is very video-game-ish, and it constrains DM creativity somewhat, but it also creates an alternate method of feeling rewards in an RPG.

Thoughts?

Because if somebody can "win" a setting, you can't publish a sequel without the players going "HEY, I played a Paladin when I beat this setting. Why does the sequel say that the _Necromancer_ won the setting?"

Of course there are some creative executions on how to avoid this. I'd say that Diablo 2 did a fairly decent job (albeit arguably the setting beat the Diablo 1 characters). But I think it may be easier to win a module or an adventure as opposed to an entire setting without affecting the sequels too terribly.

[Lokathor]

Isn't that the idea of Name Level in a campaign? You get strong enough, make a castle, push back the edges of civilization, and retire to make some new characters, and those new characters can then meet the ones who just retired, and your old characters are now a part of the ongoing campaign world.

Alternately, you know, you kill a terrible fiend and become immortalized by the gods as a constellation, or something.

[DeadlyReed]

K, that's a genuinely good question.

Unfortunately, the closest thing I've seen to addressing such a concept were the various victory points systems in some of the Pathfinder APs.

[hogarth]

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

As noted, there are plenty of campaigns like this (e.g. Masks of Nyarlathotep, Paizo adventure paths), so if by "setting" you mean "single campaign", there you go.

If by "setting" you mean "fluff that should be able to support many campaigns", then I would argue that isn't the place for specific victory conditions to be laid out; that sort of nuts 'n' bolts belongs in a particular campaign instead. It makes no sense to me to say "I beat Greyhawk!"

[DeadlyReed]

It makes sense if you plan on playing in the same instance of the campaign world multiple times.

[NineInchNall]

I ... think Weapons Of The Gods does what you're talking about. To a large degree the Destiny and Lore systems allow players meta-level control over events in the story and setting.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain what it is you want. :/

[MGuy]

I've never had this problem. From the first time I started DMing I allowed my players to change the setting through their actions. I've found that players get very excited when they see, in later campaigns, the fruits of their old labors.

[Starmaker]

Because if somebody can "win" a setting, you can't publish a sequel without the players going "HEY, I played a Paladin when I beat this setting. Why does the sequel say that the _Necromancer_ won the setting?"

Yes. This is why we don't see PCs beating the setting in WoW or any wargame: other people want to play too. When I GM'd a series of rules-light epic campaigns, I had to make a new world for each one, because people wanted epic stuff and if we didn't jump worlds, the old characters would create a glass ceiling for the new ones (if there are more places to conquer and npcs to kill/subvert, why didn't the previous party do it?)

Setting changes in a published campaign can be ascribed to unidentified heroes (which leads to future players not knowing the movers and shakers) or npc cockblockers (see Dark Sun). Both are not good.

[violence in the media]

Well, should "beating" the setting be something that you can expect to happen, or something that has a possibility of happening?

For example, if my intention as a player is to be the orky Martin Luther King, organizing marches, delivering speeches, and campaining for equal rights and full citizenship for orks, how much success should I assume? Should it matter if I'm a barbarian? Or do I need to be a silver-tongued bard? Do I have to fight the town guards that come to arrest me at my 3rd-level demonstration? What if I do? What happens if I botch all my diplomacy/charisma/social checks? Can I fuck up so badly (which fuck up is more acceptible, decisions or dice rolls?) that it becomes no longer possible for me to accomplish my goals?

Now, extend that to the rest of the players at the table. If I'm Martin Luther Ork, and two other players want to become kings, and a third wants to genocide the Zhentarim, and the fourth is seeking godhood, what do we do when our plans and goals conflict? Any one of those premises is good enough to base an entire campaign around, but they're still individual goals. I could see how you could combine them in a single campaign, but I wonder if that would take away too much of the game's suspense if it makes the success seem inevitable and the contrivances pile on to keep the party unified? I mean, if I'm ultimately going to accomplish what I set out to do at character creation, and so is everyone else at the table, that sort of makes the game feel like I'm just going through the motions.

[Thymos]

I'm working on a game I'm over half way done with that has something sort of like that.

I'm giving certain characters abilities to be come lords over a domain if they are the highest level of that class in an area.

For example the DM would compare the characters level to every other criminal in the city. If the criminal character announces that he wants to take over the cities underground or become as high as he can a few things happen. If he's not the highest then he can move up the ranks as appropriate to his level (if he's the next highest then he can quickly become second in command for example). If he's tied for the highest after a week or two a gang war will break out between his side and the other guys (and perhaps side missions for the players might be involved for him to win). If he's the highest then after a few weeks he can take over.

Now this is a bit anticlimactic in that I'm basically giving the high level criminal control over the city (although it makes sense to put other high level criminals in appropriately sized cities to prevent this). That's mostly because the campaign should rarely revolve around a gang war. If I give the player control of the criminal underground of a city the fact that he is good at that thing might really affect the plot of the game. It's that making a difference to the plot because he's a criminal that I really want.

I plan on making a similar ability for a bard and being famous, and a druid over the woods.

[Starmaker]

Well, should "beating" the setting be something that you can expect to happen, or something that has a possibility of happening?

The latter, of course.

...how much success should I assume?

In a game of heroic fantasy you can expect to be able to choose your quests, complete them and see the situation improve in case of success. Actual in-game ultimate success is not guaranteed, and the price of such a success is not set. "You were tough like you couldn't die, but we were only mortal."

Should it matter if I'm a barbarian? Or do I need to be a silver-tongued bard?

No. But the methods available to you should be contingent on your abilities and current social status.

Do I have to fight the town guards that come to arrest me at my 3rd-level demonstration?

No, why?

What if I do?

Something happens. Maybe you lose, get imprisoned, escape and see the orks oppressed more and an underground extremist movement formed that's not shy about killing racist elves and wants you to lead it, or maybe you win, the orks rise and overrun the city and you have to mop up after the massacre. Whatever the GM says. He's there for a reason.

What happens if I botch all my diplomacy/charisma/social checks?

Find a place and a reason to roll another one.

Can I fuck up so badly (which fuck up is more acceptible, decisions or dice rolls?) that it becomes no longer possible for me to accomplish my goals?

As long as you're alive, no. Decisions vs dice fuck-ups: both are fine, except you can consciously decide to die permanently and do so.

and a third wants to genocide the Zhentarim

Incompatible player goals should be resolved out of character. That is, if everyone is fine with raping and pillaging, good. If not, players (not characters) should fucking compromise and adjust their characters accordingly. (Note that I specifically say 'player goals': if someone wants their character to start out as a racist fuck and see the light, that's quite compatible.)

[Username17]

Becoming Baron, Emperor, or even God Emperor is not going to make the setting beaten, just means that the game has allowed you to fucking accomplish something. Beating the setting involves the setting not being there any more. If you destroy the world or kick off the enlightenment such that the fantasy adventure land described in the game no longer exists, then the setting is beaten.

The thing where modern games tack on the Computer Game model where you can't even really accomplish anything within the setting has got to go. But I see no particular reason why the game should include rules for scrapping the setting and moving on to new tech levels.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Becoming Baron, Emperor, or even God Emperor is not going to make the setting beaten, just means that the game has allowed you to fucking accomplish something. Beating the setting involves the setting not being there any more. If you destroy the world or kick off the enlightenment such that the fantasy adventure land described in the game no longer exists, then the setting is beaten.

What I was thinking with Martin Luther Ork, specifically, was essentially putting orks into the PHB. The player has gotten special, one-off permission to play a "monster" with the ultimate goal of changing the setting, and maybe group's, attitude.

I'd say you've beaten the setting at that point. I agree that you don't really need rules for it though. The might help as a reminder to DMs to allow that sort of thing happen and break the persistent world mindset, however.

[mean_liar]

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

I don't think that's been incorporated into most systems because it's so plastic a concept and it's setting-dependent.

It's one thing to include rules for dominions and religions and mass movements and the like - those should be there (and generally aren't). But including rules for "winning" a setting in your context is entirely setting-dependent, not system-dependent, and therefore has been left up to individual GMs to moderate.

I've achieved decent results simply by using a personal setting and tailoring it with each campaign iteration, operating by whim and fiat.

[hogarth]

The one setting that I can think of that sort of has a "win" condition is Midnight d20 (although it might be nigh-impossible to succeed).

[Nihlin]

3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars is a rules-light Space Marine-themed game. It stands as one example of an RPG that has a fixed resource supply used by the GM. Each planet assaulted has a certain amount of "threat tokens" which the GM uses to have aliens attack you. Once those tokens are gone, the planet is pacified.

Furthermore, there is a fixed menu of planet options that a campaign is nominally intended to go through, and a fixed menu of planet threat levels. Once you've cycled through them, you've pacified your corner of the universe. Maybe you play a sequel campaign somewhere else.

Finally, there is sort of another hard-coded way to beat the setting, in the sense of getting rid of the setting: the promotion track eventually gives you access to a suicide weapon that destroys a large number of cubic parsecs of space. You're strongly encouraged to use it on Earth.

[Smeelbo]

Likewise, Burning Empires has an explicit campaign sequence, with humans pitted against the devious "worms." The "worms" win if they gain a sufficient foothold to infiltrate and subvert human society, and the humans win if the "worms" are thwarted and set back.

There are specific campaign mechanics for this.

Smeelbo
Abuser of BBCodes

[K]

So my question is this: why isn't there a system that explicitly lets you win in the setting?

As noted, there are plenty of campaigns like this (e.g. Masks of Nyarlathotep, Paizo adventure paths), so if by "setting" you mean "single campaign", there you go.

If by "setting" you mean "fluff that should be able to support many campaigns", then I would argue that isn't the place for specific victory conditions to be laid out; that sort of nuts 'n' bolts belongs in a particular campaign instead. It makes no sense to me to say "I beat Greyhawk!"

Well, I've read several of the adventure paths and I can say they don't do that. They essentially hand out setting stuff at the end of the campaign, and then the adventure path is over.

At no point does it matter that you gained rulership of an Abyssal plane or anything.

[Starmaker]

Becoming Baron, Emperor, or even God Emperor is not going to make the setting beaten, just means that the game has allowed you to fucking accomplish something.

That's a matter of scale. When an adventuring party loots a dungeon, the treasure is no longer there for all subsequent parties, but no one cares, because generic dungeons are generic. Once you become a baron, the barony changes. The one page in the campaign book that describes your barony is now of no use to future players because you have accomplished something and things are different now. It's still a viable adventuing locale: a new party can help your character establish the new order, or they might attempt to fight your reign of terror.

Similarly, if you're King, the kingdom is now different, and if you're God-Emperor, the whole world changes. BAM! a new guy in power, and being an asshole doesn't earn any points with him. Civilizations fall, civilizations rise. There's a new setting to win in and almost everything in the printed books is now fundamentally untrue.

[hogarth]

Well, I've read several of the adventure paths and I can say they don't do that. They essentially hand out setting stuff at the end of the campaign, and then the adventure path is over.

At no point does it matter that you gained rulership of an Abyssal plane or anything.

Define "matter". If we followed your definition of a "beatable" setting from the first post, you could just as easily say: "We killed X threats in the enemy organization and they fell apart. So what does it matter?" or "We killed X CR of monsters and became lords of the area. So what?"

I mean, your examples are exactly the kind of stuff that "doesn't matter" that happens at the end of various campaigns. What exactly are you proposing that's different?

[Red_Rob]

I think K is proposing that the "we became Lords of the Sea" is the middle of the campaign, not the end. And that becoming Lords of the Sea makes the campaign play out differently than not doing.

Seems to me a lot like Name level in D&D, where you explicitly are supposed to graduate into a part of the setting and have adventures like "arrange for the neighbouring King to allow you trade routes through his Kingdom so you can build enough of an economy to wage war on the Lands of Iuz"

So you could rephrase the thread title "Why no beating the setting any more?"

[Rejakor]

This is exactly what i've always wanted and what i've always never been able to run anything but.

The idea that a setting isn't reactive like a real world is one that fills me with puzzlement. If the goal is to simulate/narrativate a world similar to this one, why does it react like elastic every time you try to change something? Should it really surprise a player that the race riots he started several weeks ago in Telyaurth Port ended up causing the king's death and pulling the whole damn country into a civil war?

By the time the players hit level 10, they are very powerful. They can kill arbitrary amounts of level 1-3 footsoldiers. They impact the setting in ways more personally potent than most power mad warlords can dream of. The idea that a setting is not changed by their actions and presence.. I can't even conceive that. That's ridiculous to me.

[hogarth]

I think K is proposing that the "we became Lords of the Sea" is the middle of the campaign, not the end. And that becoming Lords of the Sea makes the campaign play out differently than not doing.

That doesn't sound anything like beating a videogame to me.