Unlike the House of Worms campaign, the Dust of Gold campaign took place not in Tsolyánu, the titular Empire of the Petal Throne, bur rather in the land of Mu'ugalavyá, Tsolyánu's great rival to the west. I did this for a number of reasons, not least of which being that there's not a great deal of information about Mu'ugalavyá in the canon of Tékumel. I hoped to use the campaign as an opportunity to "find out" about Mu'ugalavyá through play, a process I've used many times to good effect in other campaigns (not least of all the House of Worms).
The early sessions took place in and around the city of Gashchné, located at the westernmost edge of Mu'ugalavyá, just south of the Great Desert of Galái and east of the vast expanse of the mysterious Plain of Towers. Before too long, the characters traveled outside Gashchné, seeking business opportunities for their mercantile clan. Eventually, these opportunities led them even farther afield, seeking out the legendary city of Ureshyésha on the far side of the Plain of Towers.
As the characters traveled, many of them died, most commonly due to combats gone wrong or failed saving throws. Since the characters were far from home, the deceased couldn't simply be replaced by new members of the Dust of Gold clan, as I would have suggested had they been back in Mu'ugalavyá. Instead, the players created characters from among the local tribal people of the southern Plain of Towers. Known as the Nixkámi, these people were socially and culturally quite different from the Mu'ugalavyáni, with whom they'd had little contact prior to the appearance of the PCs. Also along the way, several players dropped from the campaign owing to real life demands.
By the time the surviving characters successfully made it to Ureshyésha, only one of them was still a Mu'ugalavyáni member of the Dust of Gold clan. The rest were all Nixkámi or others picked up along the way. This didn't have to be a problem and, in some sense, it shouldn't have been, but I can't deny that, for me, I increasingly found it hard to find much of a thread connecting the start of the campaign with where it had wound up. I attempted to maintain my enthusiasm for the campaign as the characters explored Ureshyésha and learned more about its weird society, but, after a few months, I found it difficult to do so and admitted as much to the players who, while disappointed, nevertheless understood my feelings.
I often think back to the Dust of Gold campaign and how things unfolded. In particular, I think about the extent to which the large number of character deaths in a wilderness far from their nominal home base severed continuity with the campaign's start to such an extent that I was no longer able to muster much interest in it. To some extent, this is my own fault, in as much as I had hoped to use the campaign as a means of exploring Mu'ugalavyá. Had I not been so fixated on that particular goal, I might have cared less about differently the campaign had turned out from what I'd intended. On the other hand, the discontinuity between where things started and where they ended almost two years later was truly significant. The survival of but a single PC from the start made it hard for me to invest in what was happening and so my interest waned.
One of the reasons I prefer the term "referee" over "game master" or a similar formulation is that I try very hard to keep a certain distance between myself and the actions of the characters. I attempt to be a neutral observer and arbiter rather than being more actively involved. I don't always succeed, of course, but this is the approach toward which I aim. In the case of the failed Dust of Gold campaign, though, I can't help but think I allowed my own feelings get the better of me, to the detriment of the game. Yet, I also continue to ponder the importance of narrative (in the broad sense) continuity in a campaign. How vital is it and was it reasonable for me to feel discouraged by its disappearance? I have no firm answers to these questions.
Too late to be of any help now, but couldn't there have been some method to introduce replacement characters from the Dust of Gold clan (or at least from Mu'ugalavya) during the wilderness crossing? Magic, some device of the Ancients, running into another expedition in the wastes (surely the PCs weren't the only citizens wanering around out there), or stumbling on a tubeway station that would let them go back home to recruit help and then return to continue from where they left off?
ReplyDeleteI suppose it wouldn't have helped one of the problems - the PCs were still exploring far beyond Mu'ugalavya proper - but at least you could have maintained more continuity with the clan and its interests.
Sounds fascinating, regardless. But I can see where nearly running out of original PCs as well as losing a few players could be disheartening.
Great topic. I think that when kicking off a new campaign, knowing where replacement players are going to come from is critical.
ReplyDeleteThe classic situation of a keep or town within striking distance of a dungeon, attracting a steady stream of adventurers in search of gold and glory, was designed to solve this very early on in the history of gaming.
I also try to kick off with more players than I really need, knowing that real life will claim a few before long.
To answer the question implied by your subject title, I think it's still the same game even if all the players change. The DM and the world become the continuity in that instance. There are many examples of stories that continue past the lifespan of the first protagonists.
I think you hit the nail on the head, especially if a distant locale like Ureshyésha was dangled in front of the characters. In a game as perilous to low-level characters as EPT, this level of replacement could have been anticipated.
DeletePerhaps the players could have gamed multiple characters simultaneously, so some originals might survive the attrition.
In any case, if the players expressed disappointment it sounds like they were still interested in continuing.
Another way to lessen the impact of this is to have the players have back up characters. Maybe they start off as porters or as camp guards and then as the front line PCs die off, a porter or camp guard is promoted (with a little back story about them showing initiative over the last few days or in the last battle or something to justify their promotion).
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like this campaign has run it's course and the story is now told. In fact, to take a page out of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" I would have ended it completely when the last PC of the Dust of Gold clan ended up with the people of the Plane of Towers.
ReplyDeleteThat's more or less what happened, actually.
DeleteThen your ended to the campaign is next to perfect: the last survivor living with the tribesmen on the plane of towers. Even better, if you start it up again and the future adventures travel to that area, there's going to be quite an interesting character awaiting them.
DeleteUnrelated question but, I was rereading through some older entries and I remembered the Urheim setting. Are more of them coming? Really liked those.
ReplyDeleteMaybe? I'd like to return to it, but the interest level of the readership seemed to wane and mine with it.
DeleteI think that this is one of those situations where verisimilitude and what is working at the table will come into conflict. It's like in globe spanning campaigns like Masks of Nyarlathothep where investigators dies in droves. You will have to give up on verisimilitude, and just accept that former strangers join in along the campaign.
ReplyDeleteIn those cases it does not makes sense, I think there are two options.
One is to just introduce a new character and act as if he/she has been there all along, and just now found their voice.
If that feels weird, if you expect a deadly campaign, or something that will include a lot of long distance travel, you use the old "stable system" mentioned back in the early editions of T&T. Everyone rolls up three or four characters when the campaign starts, and swap them in when needed.
Have anyone but me found it funny that the "stable system" looks a bit like the "troupe style" play that Ars Magica famously espouse? Great ideas never die, they just mutate.
It's more akin to the "character tree" that Dark Sun used, where you made (IIRC) four characters but used one at a time, with the others were assumed to be out adventuring off-camera and levelled up as the current active PC did. Unlike T&T you were allowed (even encouraged) to swap between active PCs if you wanted between adventures, or when "you" died during one, and you always replaced losses so you had four roles to choose between at all times.
DeleteArs Magica's troupe play had everyone make their own mage and a fully fleshed-out "companion" (read: henchman) or two, but usually only one mage was on stage at a time with the rest of the players using a companion, and everyone sharing time playing members of the pool of grogs, who were basically D&D hirelings and often tended to die horribly.
The "extra" AM characters were less intended as casualty replacements than in DS or T&T and more meant to give everyone some variation in what they played and something to do when their mage was in downtime mode. The mechanics were pretty unique in forcing mages who wanted to progress in their field to spend a lot of time studying and experimenting rather than adventuring. Also older mages tended to need increasing amounts of time brewing youth potions so they could become older still.
Yeah, I know the idea was slightly different in AM, but it's fun to imagine that old idea showing up again. Kinda.
ReplyDeleteI had forgotten about Dark Sun, and that system in there.
Where have you gotten the idea that T&T disallowed you using your stable like that? I can't remember reading that codified anywhere, and in my campaign players can switch and chose like they want.
Really? Guess that was just the way my GM for the game played it, then. By the time I owned a copy of my own the "stable' idea wasn't in the book any more - or if it was I've forgotten it completely. Been a long time since I had a copy at all, and I was never a big T&T player. It was a game we played when our V&V campaign was on break and our D&D DM didn't have the night off.
DeleteI ran Horror on the Orient Express over about 14 months, during which the group underwent a similar Trigger's Broom metamorphosis and none of the players that finished it were among those who started it. Moreover, when it started it was set in the 1990s (I don't know why) and by the end was set in the 1920s, as written!
ReplyDeleteDespite all that, everyone enjoyed it and no one commented on the bitty nature of the campaign.
Probably the most interesting thing to me is that you, as DM, had your own "goal" for the campaign...and that was what was fueling your creative enthusiasm. Can you describe the player dynamic more. Were they also losing interest? Which action of choices of theirs were off-putting to you?
ReplyDeleteThere was a solid core of people – three or four of the original eight – who stuck with the game, even as their characters died often. They were definitely interested and said so, though they also understood my own lack of interest in continuing.
Delete