What should you do as a GM if you feel as though you have entirely ruined a campaign in the span of a single session?
One of the campaigns I have been GMing has been running for over twenty sessions now. It is very hard to explain what was going on, since it is 100% intrigue/infiltration/politics-based, but there was a very important and climactic scene near the start of the last session.
During that scene, the characters convinced an NPC to do something about a certain problem. The future of the campaign was banking on the precise way this NPC would solve the problem. The characters preferred a specific way, but had no grounds to make a case for it. (It was probably a poor GMing call to leave the characters with little agency in this situation to begin with, I know.)
After deliberating on it for a long while, I left it to the dice.
The NPC ultimately did not do things the way the characters wanted the NPC to. This turned around the *entire* campaign into "fixing the aftermath of what just happened." The rest of the session, which was especially long (eight hours), involved playing out this attempt at fixing the situation.
It did not prove very enjoyable at all. I did not find the changes fun, and neither did the players, because much of the changes involved making the things the characters worked towards irrelevant.
After the session, I was wholly convinced that I had entirely ruined the campaign. The players disliked the new direction of the campaign, but not *so* much that wanted to retcon the entire session away (partly because it was so long, partly because of the usual resistance to simply saying "none of that happened"). I cannot just declare that the changes get rapidly reversed in-game either, because there is no way for that to happen short of literal time travel (which I do not do) or an astonishingly awkward contrivance.
What can I do to salvage the situation?
I think we're going to need specifics anon. What you've posted is pretty vague.
>>44285164
I was about to suggest a retcon but seeing how your players don't feel like that... You really should talk to your players about this. Tell them how you feel and what you fear. Tell them that they really should think about it before dismissing the retcon.
If they're really set on not doing a retcon you should try to make the best of the situation. Find someway to turn it around. Make them think that fixing the aftermath wasn't so bad after all. You can so by introducing fun plots/npcs/whatever that they would never have had to deal with if things hadn't ended up the way it did.
>>44285191
There is no way to adequately summarize over twenty sessions of a 100% intrigue/infiltration/politics-based campaign without it being grossly oversimplified in a way that does not make sense.
Let me try regardless. The characters, from the very start of the campaign, were trying to complete a grand-scale mission from a patron. At some point before the last session, they had irrevocably lost something that was critical to this mission, and its loss would gradually compromise both themselves and their patron unless their patron cut off all ties with them.
The patron was faced with two choices: restore that which the characters had lost at overwhelming and pyrrhic personal cost to the patron, or cut off all ties with the characters and disavow them.
The latter was what the patron chose, so much of what they worked for during this mission was made irrelevant. During the aftermath, the characters sold out their patron to the people the characters were originally undertaking the mission *against*, so it is not as though they can try to get back into the good graces of their patron. (It was perhaps not the best decision, but I can see the logic in having made it.)
The problem is that they now have very little to do. They could work for their original enemy (and their original enemy is fully willing to take them in), but the characters are personally opposed to doing that. They could become free agents and wander around, but that means the campaign has lost its original driving direction.
>>44285164
what is the context of the image? is it chens birthday? was it an accident or did someone purposely crush her heart?
>>44285471
How about introducing some sort of reason to work for their original enemy despite being opposed to it? If it's already intrigue based?
>>44285690
>>flipping sides is bad in an intruigue game
Yeah I like my spy thrillers predictable too
>>44285690
>>44285796
The reason why I (and, to an extent, the players) are opposed to working for the other side is because the campaign then becomes about undoing all of the sabotage and subversion they have been enacting for over twenty sessions, while working under a new patron whom they are personally opposed to.
Even if there are circumstances forcing the PCs to do it, it is unsatisfying for the players ("The campaign is now about undoing your accomplishments to date"), and it is unsatisfying for the characters ("We dislike our new patrons"), so what is there to be gained from it?
Heroes exiled. You've explained the campaign is too complicated to explain, but I assume they've failed in their task and someone important or the entire city is now angry at them.
Have the next part of the campaign them trying to gain favour with new cities while being haunted by their past.
>>44285471
>They could become free agents and wander around, but that means the campaign has lost its original driving direction.
Consider it. New directions mean new horizons, new possibilities. Perhaps they find something new and interesting. Perhaps they wandering until they find a new drive becomes an interesting adventure. Maybe it'll all eventually do a big loop around to what they were doing before. You can only tough it out and learn from your mistakes.Try to dig out the positives from the situation. No, look harder. They're there, somewhere.
Are the PCS invested in the same goals as their patron? Because you could then spin it as them trying to continue on and work back into the patron''s good graces.
>>44285951
>>44285959
How would this not just be starting a new campaign entirely, with the same PCs but with a wholly different direction?
>>44285964
They are reasonably invested in the same goal, but they had opted to sell out their patron (the logic, at the time, was protection from their patron), so it is going to be rather difficult to get back into said patron's good graces.
>>44286151
Well it's start a 'new campaign' or nothing mate. You fucked up, the least you could do is let your players continue their story. A change of setting and style doesn't correlate starting a new campaign anyhow.
>>44285164
>What should you do as GM
Your job.
>I left it to the dice
Found your problem.
If you didn't know what your own NPC would have done in that situation, you're That GM.
QED
>>44285164
>partly because of the usual resistance to simply saying "none of that happened"
I don't understand this at all. If you dislike the the new direction, and your players dislike the new direction, and the new direction came about because of a mistake on your part, then annulling the session isn't anything to be ashamed of.
>>44286151
You could also introduce a third party, maybe one whose goals don't require undoing what has been done so far, but maybe altering it, taking advantage of it or taking it even further.
>>44285164
>It was probably a poor GMing call to leave the characters with little agency
There's no "probably" here. This is always a wrong decision, regardless of the situation.
>I left it to the dice.
Never do this unless every outcome is going to be interesting.
>What can I do to salvage the situation?
retcon it anyways. Admit that you're a fuckup and that you want to undo the stupid shit you did so that the game can maybe not be a waste of hundreds of hours of gameplay.
>>44285164
The NPC did this and is unhappy about it.
The PCs are cut off.
Let them go, and move on. These guys are obviously not useless even though they fucked up - other groups will come to grab these guys, and potentially -
Get some high powered rogue faction to grab these guys, and go after the bad guys in an aggressive manner. Change the rules, make the campaign into a more subterfuge game rather than a political one, go more for infiltration stuff, scullduggery. Still working in the same vein as their patron, but acting out of his control.
From there you can either bring them back in redemption later, or they might become extremist and even bad enough to be fully hunted even by former allies and friends in their struggle to do what's right, what is needed to make things good, to get things done.
That's how I would do so.
>>44286686
This.
If players want to work against these guys but their old patron won't employ them, introduce someone new for them to continue working towards the same goal for.
>>44286385
>>44286773
Yes, it was not a very good call in the slightest. I acknowledge that.
>>44286627
*I* would prefer to retcon it, but my players would not, because they are apparently of the mindset that retconning away an entire session is a far graver sin than continuing on with the current state of affairs.
>>44286686
>>44286872
>>44286901
Introducing a third party is probably a fair idea, particularly when there are already preestablished options for third parties that could be shoehorned into such a role.
>>44287018
Sounds like it's time to get creative with a third party then.
>>44285471
I think this a good arc for character development and bond-forming. Things went to hell, now they need to pick themselves back up.
>>44288369
This, unfortunately, will not be possible due to reasons that are *truly* quite difficult to explain without going on a several-post soliloquy.
Suffice it to say though, the players had spoken to me with regards to the character arcs they wanted to play out with their respective characters, and these character arcs were heavily grounded in the current setup of the campaign. Even if I solve the issue with patronage, those character arcs will still have to be more or less aborted, which is quite a shame.
Suffice it to say though, this was supposed to be a slow, gradual, natural redemption story for the characters. The new circumstances remove the "slow, gradual" part because they are being abruptly forced to redeem themselves in a different way, and they also remove the "natural" part because now they have to redeem themselves out of practical, pragmatic concerns (like "we just lost our employer") rather than because of any organic character growth.
It is truly quite demoralizing.
>>44288707
>out of practical, pragmatic concerns (like "we just lost our employer") rather than because of any organic character growth.
This is entirely organic in it's own way though. This shit genuinely happens.
>>44288797
It is organic in its own way, yes, but then it becomes more about pragmatic, mercenary concerns rather than "I should redeem myself because I am not a good person."
Most frustratingly, they lost the critical MacGuffin out of non-morally-related mishaps, so it cannot even be spun around into "We are in this situation because we are bad people." It becomes more of "Well, we suffered some mishaps, but let us see if we can cut our losses and still profit from it all the same."
>>44288707
It sounds like the devil has laughed at the best laid plans.
Don't worry about it; as a GM, sometimes unexpected things can happen! Though the story's derailed off where you thought it can go, rather than think of it as a failure, consider it a new direction to take things in, embrace the change!
-What's useful here is to give the characters - and the players - an impetus, another driving force. I'm sure you can amend or salvage many parts of the redemption areas, but focusing the players on the immediate concerns is often very useful in kicking them into gear.
Now that they've been cut off, it is a good time for former enemies to close in for the kill, to target them and try to take them out now they are out from the auspices of their patron. When suddenly, someone who wants their services alive more than dead can come in to save them. Not necessarily personally, but allies. Perhaps someone in a similar sort of ousted situation.
Perhaps they, too, might need redemption, of a sort, and thus tie the story in to your players.
Change what needs to change, add what needs to be added, this is not a setback but simply a different direction.
Don't be too hard on yourself; each player seems to want to play on, so you clearly are doing something right and they are enjoying the game. You need to let yourself enjoy it, too.
>>44288870
I have discussed the points you have brought up with my players over the course of a few hours.
Ultimately, we were unable to reach a satisfactory way to repair the current campaign, and it seems that I will have to shelve this one and begin a new one.
It is quite a shame, but there is little that can be done about it.
>>44285164
>What should you do as a GM if you feel as though you have entirely ruined a campaign in the span of a single session?
Talk to your players about it and learn from the experience.
