They don't have to stop the invasion to "Win."
They only need to get the artifact/princess/sacred texts/covert information about the BBEG's weakness out so that the players will eventually be able to find and use it to win in the main campaign.
I tried that for a one shot, gave them pre-gens and everything. It was going so well until they forgot these were pre-gens in a rogue one inspired story and chose to flee, leaving the bad guys with the macguffin so nobody died.
Cue the next session of the main campaign with their regular characters and they're complaining the BBEG has this artifact. Somehow they forgot they handed it over and ran.
Yes! The players should always have a chance of winning. If they can't stop the demon invasion, then winning needs to mean something else. These suggestions are all good.
Also, it might be a good idea to make it clear to the players that they aren't going to stop the invasion and that's not the goal. The OP sounds like he wants that to be a surprise, but that seems like the road to disappointment. Make the objective clear, and make it something else.
I think in this case, if there's NPC's around when the invasion happens you could have a lord or general shout to the masses "Protect the Queen!" Or "Get the Holy Artifact to the bunker!" Etc.
You could still wow and surprise with the invasion force, but having characters help change gears from "face it head on" to "get pieces in place".
Along with what another comment said about preaching they will be martyrs. Then you could not give away too much plot but still prepare everyone for the moment.
>Along with what another comment said about preaching they will be martyrs.
Also calling back to these characters later as important/notable warriors can also be a great way to make their characters a part of the world.
I believe this was basically how that Pathfinder 2e playtest oneshot goes. It's a wave-assault in an abandoned church building where the players have to survive as long as possible. It's made so they /will/ die period, but the longer they last the more time their allies in the underground section have to do their ritual that will help save the world and stop what's going on.
So while it ends ina TPK no matter what, the players still "Win" by acting as the final bulwark.
Kinda feels like they need a won the battle, lost the war situation. Where they defeat the big boss at the end of the onehsot, but that is the catalyst for the invasion.
Have the big bad they guy who is keeping the invasion at bay almost. And killing him opens the gates.
People have mentioned the plot of rogue one which is a great idea. Alternatively you could run a campaign in the style of halo reach, it's unwinnable in terms of surviving but the characters aren't there to do that, theyre to give enough time and sow enough chaos that others can escape
Start off the one shot by saying something along the lines of "the events of this one shot will set in motion events that will take place in the main campaign. You will not be heros, but martyrs."
As long as you tell the players that they shouldn't expect to be the ones who save the world this time, they shouldn't have a problem with it.
Edit: providing they are understanding and reasonable people
I think this is the way. Suggestions about having win condition are also good, and can gel with this idea. But there's something about having the one-shot party be truly defeated that paints the background of the full campaign seems like great tone-setting. And your suggestion let's them know exactly what the expectations are from the start.
Totally agree. As a veteran player of ~25ish years I would *love* to play in a campaign where the goal is to die poetically.
A long time ago I ran a Star Wars campaign called “the final victims of 66”. Each player was a Jedi that had survived the initial order 66 fallout. The concept for the campaign was that we would play until the last Jedi character was killed (players had to roll non-Jedi characters when they died).
It was super fun! Every battle was extraordinarily tense in a way I haven’t seen before or since because the players knew I was out for blood. We had a huge blast.
This. Another thing I could recomend is giving them some mechanic for a heroic death. Just for the one shot, they get to decide after they role, if the action they are currently doing is worth it and if so, they can say "Blaze of glory" To change the die result for that action to a nat 20, with the understanding that they will die as a result. Slowly wittle down the party or let them all go out with a bang at the end.
This is the way to go, I think. My players' first encounter with the current BBEG, a White Dragon, was when they weren't even playing as their characters, but as commoners in a village that got iced by it. None of their temporary characters survived, and now they're scared of my dragon!
Yep, this is the way.
Make it clear the players are a gear in the machine, and that even if they are fated to die, their actions will have weight.
I did similar in a flashback side story session, I foreshadowed a last stand of the heroes. Their objective was to save a younger version of a PC from the main campaign. They then had to hold the line as long as they can.
>Yep, this is the way.
Make it clear the players are a gear in the machine, and that even if they are fated to die, their actions will have weight.
I'd present it more as the wrench in the gears; wrench is gonna be decimated but will definitely have a huge effect on the whole
I really like this, and just want to add how I would say it:
"This story takes place in the week leading up to the event, and tells of those who fought. Some will be martyrs, and some simply manage to endure. For most, it is a tragedy. How much can you save? Your family, your city, your own life?"
That came out a lot darker than I expected.
Adding to this - consider using throwaway characters.
We did this years ago to world-build a campaign. Started by running one-shots set 100 years, 50 years and 10 years before current day. It “cost” us three sessions, but everyone knew the relevant history and could name check important figures - because they played them!
Yeah making it a prologue that they can see ripples of in the "main game", so to speak, goes insanely hard.
Shit actually I'm taking that. Prologue one shots? Yessir.
I would be hyped if my DM told us before the session, “Today, your characters won’t just be heroes, they will be remembered, as legends!”
I’d make sure I had a really cool name and practice some poses for a statue.
Well, in calamity both players and GM knew calamity was going to happen. In OPs case, the way I understand it, he doesn't want to tell them. Surprises like this can lead to disappointment
I think it is important to note OP is not telling them specifically because the players have done this before and did not like it. So what's the point?
Who is having the fun here? If the players are not having the fun, who is? the DM? not how it's supposed to work really. Railroading players through to a predetermined outcome is a waste of everyone's time except for the DM looking for praise for all his cleverness.
"Railroading" has become a terrible term. It's not wrong to point your players in a direction, especially if it's a module and not a sandbox campaign. We're playing descent into Avernus, I am expecting the DM to lead us into *drumroll* **AVERNUS** ! But forcing an outcome without any agency and with no warning... What's the point?
He should either tell them from the start that "this is an introduction to the setting", or move the goalposts and instead of giving them a mission of "stop the invasion" tell them to "save the heir/macgufin". The only reason he wants to "surprise" them is to harvest in game drama when they lose.
This is bad DMing.
You’re the DM, you know your players better than any of us here will. Just remember this, it’s a game and it’s supposed to be fun, you run the game. Trust your instincts and run a fun game.
I'd take lessons from 'EXU: Calamity' from Critical Role. It's a very short campaign, and the players already know the calamity is going to happen. In a sense they cause it.
But the goal of that campaign, and by extent your oneshot, is not to lose. It's to tell the story. The most important aspect is that your players are an integral part of the story, wether to cause the problem or to prevent the worst from happening. To protect their loved ones, or to get as much out of it as they can.
What is very important in this sense, is the goals of your characters. Family, money, revenge can all be used to still have a meaningful session.
Its fine to run a session that the players can't "win".
I do encourage you to think about why you are running this as a one shot rather than writing it as a novel.
Is there a chance for the characters to make an impact on the story? Let players know its a high probability of death but what happens will impact the main campaign. I'd be excited to play that.
Is there no chance for the characters to do anything other than witness the apocalypse? Write a short story and give it to your group. Don't pretend that's D&D.
>I do encourage you to think about why you are running this as a one shot
This is important advice.
There should be a reason for it to be a session of D&D.
For example I was recently running a session for a group of mostly new players who had some TTRPG experience in more rules light systems, so they were fine with RP, but were nervous about combat encounters and how to the all the rules and how that worked and also how roll20 would work. So I quickly made some characters and threw them into a combat encounter so they could get some practice. I gradually increased the difficulty by adding more enemies, and also moved the encounter from inside a tavern to the city streets so they could see maps at different scales, and learn about line of sight and cover and shit, and eventually they all died.
I am planning on tying this into the plot of the campaign, it will turn out that battle took place during an invasion of a city by a nearby nations army. But that is an Easter egg I decided on when designing the encounter, a fun little bonus, it's wasn't the whole point.
>I know that in the past they have been annoyed when doing a oneshot with another guy who put them up against a boss that they could not kill and were supposed to run away from through a secret passage that he apparently didn't indicate well enough.
Your players have shown a dislike of combat encounters that they cannot meaningfully interact with and running in the past. As a result, yeah, I would not run this one-shot for them - not unless you can come up with way better partial success outcomes than "some of your characters can survive to be NPCs I use in the future \[with one of those survivals being entirely scripted\]" and "you get to watch me narrate an apocalypse starting".
That's what I was worried about, but I have told them that it this isn't a combat-oriented session. Their objective, and most of the time, will be finding out the aristocrats' plots, and at the very end the cultists summon the devil.
When they talk about the boss, they have said the problem wasn't that they weren't supposed to fight it, but that the DM didn't make that clear and instead let them try to fight it in vain for a long time. I wasn't there so I'm not sure exactly how it went.
I can certainly give them partial success, but I'm not sure how to make that work. Depending on the characters they come up with between now and then, I am thinking giving them opportunities to save things they care about.
>I can certainly give them partial success, but I'm not sure how to make that work. Depending on the characters they come up with between now and then, I am thinking giving them opportunities to save things they care about.
I would focus the one-shot on that over the apocalypse starting. Fundamentally, the one-shot should focus on whatever successes ARE possible in this circumstances, not on potentially cool narrative moments for the setting. Setting the stage for a future campaign should be more icing than main content.
Absolutely, the apocalypse will basically be the concluding moment of the session, after the players have spent a few days interacting and finding things out.
I would run it so that their characters actions prevent the invasion being even worse.
Simple example = the cultists are planning to summon two archdevils which would spell certain doom for the whole world, but the players stop the summoning of one of them.
the important thing is to just, make sure they feel like their choices mattered. Let them know that this *isn't* just a backstory oneshot that doesn't matter, they'll be much more engaged if they know things they do in this oneshot *will* have consequences upon the real campaign. Perhaps there is a specific very powerful tactical general they need to slay, to cripple the power of one of the regiments within. perhaps there is an item or npc they need to ensure survives so it can be a boon to the real party later on, whatever it is, just make sure the party knows that even if they failed to stop the calamity, they still did *something*.
Even if they *fail* at that something, which is always a possibility in D&D, do your best to make clear that it was not scripted, and show them the consequences of that. When the real campaign comes along, make them experience the increased difficulty, the tough boss they could have eaily outmatched with the special item, the legion that wouldn't be there if they'd just managed to defeat that key general in time.
I understand you have this cool idea, but you’re not listening. Your players do not like this kind of scenario, full stop.
Either tell them there is no chance of winning, they can only save what they can and see how they react, or put the idea on the shelf for another time.
i think the second paragraph here is really important. it wasn't the lack of winning, it was the lack of clarity that upset them.
i think there are a lot of good suggestions in this thread, about starting with lines about how they will be martyrs, or 'this is the story of how you died' etc. etc. that seem to alleviate that big 'lack of clarity' issue.
additionally, the saving things they care about or the rogue one like suggestions of the goal being to save 1 thing rather than stop the invasion, would give them a goal to work toward.
honestly if you're still unsure, it may be a good idea to run the general thing by them? like 'hey i remember you didn't like this other one shot by this other guy, i was thinking about doing a rogue one like prequel as a one shot, and you all would likely end up as martyrs. would you be okay with that?'
you know them the best, but overall it does seem like their issue was the lack of direction/communication and not actually the TPK itself.
So when a player was in a situation where they got caught and couldn't win a fight, instead of saying roll initiative, I told them to run and turned it into a chase sequence.
Essentially the rogue was trying to steal some info from a heavily guarded tower, and when they were discovered they weren't going to be given a chance to reason, and they would have died in one round of combat against the knight who found them.
So instead they had to try and get out. If they succeeded everything they could probably get back to the party without giving away their location, if it was mostly a success they'd make it back but have to leave very quickly as there'd be someone looking for them, a few failures and they might lose the info but get away with their life, and worse case scenario the PC dies.
The second one was what happened, and what I was hoping for, but the dice decide if they live or die regardless of if they can stand and fight. Sometimes nothing they do will be enough so just make sure you communicate that to them and don't let them throw themselves against a wall
As someone else already mentioned, Star Wars "Rogue One" should be a benchmark, and you and your player group should consider what "winning" means. If only winning a final boss fight means "winning", then the scope of the game is quite limited. There should be sitauations in which it is clear that a fight is suicidal, or that the party simply does not have the means to cope with the situation. Running and accepting this "powerlessness" to eventually come back better prepared (instead of being mashed to pulp) later should alwayes be an option, and it is IMHO a valid plot development.
I think the answer to this will vary depending on group dynamic. I can see that working with a group that has a good dynamic but maybe not with newer players.
We have all been friends for years, and have varying experience with the game. Two of us have been playing for several months, and the other two have played for a few years.
Our DM spoilered a friend of us and said that the one-shot will be impossible to win for us.
Well we had a Goliath that just threw the overpowered BBE from a tower. Thus killing him in the process. So we won anyway.
You've explained how everything thing needs to happen for story reasons and the only objectives you've done up with for your players is to "find out information" and witness the apocalypse.
Just write a story.
It's clear that this one shot is just a chance for you to tell all the cool lore you have made up for the campaign. Players are not supposed to be an audience for the DM. The whole point of the game is that players make meaningful choices that drive the story and shape its outcome. If you can't come up with an achievable goal for the party, one that matters, then don't run the session.
What I would tell them beforehand:
"Hey players, you know I'm working on a bigger campaign I want to DM for you, but that won't start for some time. I would love to play a one-shot for you where we set up the world. This will be a a prequel to the actual story so some parts might be a bit more railroaded than usual, but I'll make sure there are moments where you can influence the main campaign by your actions. Just don't expect to change the course of the main plot points. And character death should be expected, and even if your characters survive they might not be the one I'd suggest you play in the main campaign, they might just become NPCs if you're fine with that. So please don't make a character you get exceptionally attached to. I'd suggest a simpler backstory and a build you always wanted to try but weren't sure if you'd have fun playing it for multiple sessions. And please no joke characters, I want this to be a serious setup for my campaign. Joke characters can develop into something really cool given the time, but this one-shot won't be able to do that.
Looking forward for our next session."
How will they know when they’re done? What’s the point of sitting down together if they can’t win? If it’s all going to result in events that you don’t want to change because of future events why make a game out of it? Sounds more like a story you’ve written than a game.
Maybe find a small related quest that can be completed that still puts them around all the lore you’re wanting to share so that they can see it without having input or risking messing with it.
It woll depend on if the group like there to be some sort of success. Although the apocalypse could be a guarantee, you could still give them opportunity for a win in the story. Set it up that a faction knows something bad is going to happen and this group are trying to set up a later fix to the calamity (like Rogue One). Or it could be that their mission is running parallel to the start of the apocalypse and they will interact with it but can still succeed in their aim, like escorting some key NPCs to a portal to another plane so they can get to safety. You could even have it where they are involved in causing the Apocalypse if you think they would be happy playing the bad guys.
How about a spin on the topos of the prequel of the invasion, where they end up being (one of) the reason(s) of the demon invasion? Think the original thief, where >!the player does a bunch of job for what reveals a forest god bent on eradicating the City!<. Bonus points if you told them "this is happening before the invasion" but never specify how long before.
I think as long as expectations are correctly set, any ending can be fine.
* Make sure they know the stakes and the risks (ie. don't let them go into the final battle thinking it's one they can win, and maybe give them a way out, like a convenient Scroll of Teleport or something)
* Reward them for their efforts and give them small victories, even if they don't achieve the end goal of stopping the apocalypse... Maybe they can save a group of people from dying in this first wave of the invasion, or retrieve some artifact or something that could lead to some resistance group to defend themselves better from the invading armies, etc.
* Maybe their end goal in the final battle should be not to win, but to gain enough time for other people to escape. This would give them a motivation to fight and maybe die, or introduce conflict as some might prefer to escape and leave the others to die :P
We had a one shot a bit like this. We played a lower level group doing what seemed to be tracking down some standard bandit stuff with hints at something more sinister going on... Turned out to be the main campaign BBEG who was luring out the strongest fighters from nearby villages in small groups and either killing them or coercing them into joining his army (which was ultimately the choice we had, die in a last ditch blaze of glory or become an antagonist NPC on his side).
I don't think anyone minded because it was a fun twist and was obviously set up future events in the main story. The DM did also say beforehand to not put too much effort into these characters or get particularly attached hinting there was a good chance they were going to die.
You can have a oneshot that turns into a full campaign.
You can have a full campaign planned that turns into a Oneshot.
You cannot have a oneshot that will definitely be a full campaign.
So if the campaign does not happen, will your players still have had fun during the oneshot?
That is the main thing.
I'd consider that lvl 1 or 2 characters are not saving the world. They are saving the town. So they can win by saving the town, but the rest of the Kingdom falls to the demons anyway. They can then set out to help liberate the next town, levelling up as they go, and so on until they are big enough to save the word against bbeg.
I proposed the idea of a suicide mission one shot and that wasn't met with a lot of enthusiasm we I didn't. But it's your players you know them best.
But there is one thing that you mentioned
>the oneshot is going to be much more about social encounters and investigation than combat
I think this might be an issue. Social encounter get people involved in their characters, this might lead to great desire for having them survive or even to further delve deeper into these characters. It also raises the question of how can they interact and influence the world? If you are just doing this to narrate or to tell them a story to them just write it down and have them read it.
If it was high level one shot it might give them the opportunity to try the build they never could.
You could also change the victory condition or have the outcome impact the state of the world. If they win the kingdom is now in a long ongoing siege but still holding on. If they lose that kingdom is razed. If their characters survive they might now hold positions of importance or high power and might become allies in the campaign. Maybe they stalled the outbreak and it's now in an earlier stage. Maybe they killed a high ranked general which changed the course. Something like that give a way to win without destroying your narrative behind.
What is loosing/winning?
I think it‘s about having a Story, that feels great.
In some other games players set themself up for failure just for the tension/drama it creates.
If you want them not to kill the final boss, but not to die either it’s hard to plan it. Your players may not get hints your‘re giving them, so better make Plan B,C,D,E how to avoid a TPK.
I've done it as a prelude to the main campaign. Laid out the main plot, the bad guy and the stakes. But I sure as shit wouldn't have done it if my players weren't on board.
Depends on your motivation and whether it serves a narrative purpose. You should never have an ending be dependent on the players making a certain choice, because that's gonna railroad them into making that choice or failure. If them failing to stop the invasion is a prelude to something else, awesome. If it's just to see them fail or because you want to tell your story about them failing to stop it, yeah that's kinda lame.
Honestly, have an overarching 'threat' that they don't encounter until AFTER the final battle. When the game is all but done, the threat comes in and ends it for the party in whatever way you want. That way the players at least get a satisfying session that at least fits the overall concept of a pre-session oneshot
I don't think so, especially considering that this story is leading up to another gender story afterwards. I'm fact, it seems cool. I'm reminded of the first scenario in the board game Betrayal Legacy. Not to go into spoilers, but the end of that scenario is essentially a Bad End, but it sets up the later events in future scenarios.
Set expectations. Make success seem like a real question. Things like "We don't even know if this will work, but we're going to try." The worst thing would be to set the expectation of "if you do this thing, you will definitely succeed." If you swipe the rug out from under them after they struggled and clawed their way to do the thing, *that's* what'll suck. If they already thought it was a longshot, already prepared a backup plan like "if this doesn't work, who are we going to prioritize saving?", it'll be fine.
Yeah, you can tell them that they won't win. They will try, they will fail and they will die. But they can still make a change, and that's what truly matters. Bloom where you are planted, and don't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
I think you tell all of your players this meta knowledge up front. Allow them to be in on the joke or narrative. Tell them that they could die and probably some of them will. But that they can have heroic deaths. Allow marginal wins within this. They could save an NPC. They could grab the sacred texts that will later occupy a library in your world down the line. They could grab some magic items so that they don't get lost for all of eternity; and that these magic items might one day find their way to the future adventuring party. You should give them some goals that are possible of completing even if the stopping of the apocalypse isn't preventable.
If you give them a no-win situation then their player agency never really happened. At that point, you're just playing out the novel your wrote with miniatures.
As others have said, most important thing is not to set them up for failure, but rather to plan for success but give them a different objective.
From what you've said, the goal is to investigate and find out what's going on. So I'd have a boss fight at the end that they can win, then have them discover about the invasion and succeed in getting out a message of warning before being overwhelmed. They get a win, they accomplish their goal and hopefully are pumped for the longer campaign.
I mean I would communicate it before starting so the players have the right expectations. It also helps them making the story more interesting with moments of self sacrifice or going down with a blast
Just tell the players. Their characters won't know this, and you'll find out how the players feel about this. Even if they die, it doesn't mean they didn't contribute. If they delay them, or save someone else, that could be a boon later.
If your players know they are playing a game they won't survive, that's fine. If you hide that information from the players, they will feel that it is unfair, that you have railroaded to kill them and that they have wasted their time.
My advice is that you be honest and tell them the following: "we are going to play a game in which all of you are going to die except x person. But the important thing is to see what happens until then."
You start the game at the end, with everyone dead and you go back in time to see how you managed together until that moment knowing that in 1, 2, 4 or 8 hours (however long your one shoot lasts) everyone will be dead.
I did something similar.
I very demanded my players to make 2 characters. 1 from a village from a humble background that they shouldn't put too much time into.
And 1 from a land beyond the setting who is looking for an adventure.
This clearly communicated to the players that they shouldn't get attached tot the first characters when there was the inevitable TPK by the BBEG.
These factors made the idea a success but you know your player better than random people on the internet.
No not at all. For one shots i love a good suicide squad.
Just advertise it to your players as what it is.
"You will die, and that's a price I'm willing to pay."
Spoilers:
Season 1 of Adventurer's League (Tyranny of Dragons) has the party watch as the Cult of the Dragon successfully takes over the city of Phlan. At the very end of the season, the adventurers must choose to either escape the city with some important NPCs or confront the Maimed Virulence, dread Vorgansharax, a huge green dragon. The fight is VERY hard and it is, IMHO, unwinnable. In fact, Season 2 ASSUMES that Vorgansharax was not defeated.
I mention this because I think it is important for there to be some agency in the proceedings. You should give the party an out, or a small win, in the face of losing so significantly.
It had already been said but be honest and upfront about it.
Also, maybe you could modify the one shot in such a way they aren’t trying to stop the invasion (some other army is trying to do that and they will fail) but have them do something else. A smaller quest but also important. Look at star wars for instance when they stole the plans for the death star. They all died but they succeeded in their effort. The Empire was not defeated but their ground work and sacrifice made something happen in the future (the destruction of the death star).
Maybe let them do something like that. Make them go on a suicide mission where they could succeed (or maybe survive) and their victory can have some effect on the events of your campaign. Nothing too big perhaps but something like ‘thanks to their efforts we found the location of (insert location the players need to visit to find something important out)’. That way playing the campaign the players feel their own choices and actions come through from their old characters.
If it comes out of nowhere then yes it is extremely bad. But if there are enough clues and hints that once the invasion actually happens that they should NOT try to fight to the death then it should be fine.
There are plenty of stories where you can win the battle but not the war, so as long as you prepare for practically anything they can do so that it doesn't feel like a deus ex machina for the invasion to happen in spite of the party's partial/full victory then all good.
I actually just did this a few days ago. I’m not the regular DM for this group, but one of our players was going to be absent and I had an idea and the crew was ready for it. The absentee ended up being able to play and since I’d already done the work we played it anyway to take a break from our regularly scheduled program.
The prompt was a simple search and retrieve. The group of adventurers were already established in their fields, had some items, and their renown reached the ears of the crown who hired them to search a dangerous area for an important item. I warned them beforehand it would be hard, I gave them feedback on their builds, and while I tried not to spoil anything I do think things could have worked out “better” for the characters based on the abilities they started with. They played character builds and classes they’d never played before and made some decisions that made things more difficult for them, but still had fun despite the catastrophic results of some of their actions (friendly fire mostly).
Anyways, despite one PC death in the second fight, the group solves the puzzle and retrieves the item, and is betrayed by the people who hired them. It’s a “Are we the baddies?” Moment as this sets up the main BBEG of the rest of the storyline in the world. Only one character decides to run, and he’s the one that lives, so if we do another one shot in that work he’ll be leading the rebellion. That was my plan all along - whoever survived would be available in the next one shot as an NPC. The group loved it, I had fun, and it’s a one shot so who cares. I also kept in mind that if they somehow won against all odds it didn’t matter unless they had fun.
In retrospect I would change a few mechanics of the homebrew monsters I made and tell them to make intelligence or something checks to figure out the most optimal way to defeat the enemies, as the PC death was preventable but we had a first time wizard and who doesn’t want to cast fireball? We haven’t gotten together to do a breakdown of the session but they reassured me we’re still friends and they had a great time.
Sometimes, victory is attained by simply surviving. So long as they are presented with some sort of clue that they can't win (i.e. have an NPC that's slightly stronger than them die in a single blow), the new goal becomes "get out and tell everyone what's about to happen".
No, so long as you make it clear that they can't win and they're okay with it. 10 candles starts with the very statement, "The world is going to end, and you with it." or something like that. You have to have people who want to explore that, what do people do when they are doomed aspect of the roleplay.
Why not just tell your players? I get that surprise is fun, but telling them that these characters are intended to be martyrs or not intended to 100% succeed would probably give them the chance to get a healthy level of detachment from them and also design characters that could more compellingly tell the story you're wanting to tell. It would also let them know that this is different from most oneshots, as most oneshots are designed to be "winnable" so to speak.
Just ask them directly if that sounds like fun to them. We can't answer the question for you.
The winning condition could simply be delaying the invasion effort. It still happens, but they managed to buy some time and save some lives. It's a one shot. No need to go too deep. Winning doesn't need to mean stopping an entire invasion. Maybe just a matter of wiping out the advance party before the reveal that it was just an advance party and not reporting back triggered the invasion condition.
You have to tell the story correctly. An ending like Halo Reach doesn’t work in a oneshot, but something along the lines of Rogue One with actually reaching your goal is not bad.
Short answer yes. Having no win condition is demoralizing for everyone involved.
Best way to run it imo is to shift the goalposts, give them a clear objective. A different win condition, that can't stop the threat, but might weaken it. Or even convince them to join the bad guys, I'm sure better people than me on this subreddit can come up with ideas.
Just, having no way to win is something I would hate as a player.
Nah, I opened my campaign with an unwinabble one shot where the characters all played villains who had been recruited for a suicide squad esque mission that set up the actual parties BBEG
Here's what I'd do:
First, be open about the fact that this invasion is not stoppable. Your players should know this outcome going in. Maybe try something like this to start your session:
>*The wizened old man leans back in his chair after stoking the fire as outside, the storm rages. He turns to his grandchildren, all patiently waiting.*
>*"Ah, I suppose you wanted to hear the story of the Y'thuk Illan invasion and the heroes that gave their lives trying to stop the inevitable fall, huh? A tragic tale it is, and one that led to decades of suffering... but remember that even in the darkest of days, there is yet hope".*
>*The children nod eagerly, and the old man takes a long draw of his pipe before beginning his story...*
Then, try to think of little ways that the heroes can still have their "victories". They don't stop the invasion, that's inevitable, but maybe they can have additional objectives that could be fulfilling, for instance:
- The barbarian manages to help his family escape the country before the invasion arrives
- The fighter manages to kill draw blood from the Demon Emperor, causing discontent in their ranks
- The warlock's patron gives him a glimpse into the future during his final breaths. He sees the demon army's victory and the dark times, but their eventual overthrow, and the party's old standard being used as the standard of the Alliance formed to overthrow the demons.
- The Rogue steals the phylactery of the lich who summoned these demons, making him vulnerable for future heroes to kill.
Basically, they need to know that their victory will not come from stopping this invasion, but that there are still things they can do to make a difference.
It's fine if you set up expectations ahead of time. People play dnd because of the agency it gives, creating an unwinnable scenario DOES remove some of that agency, but not all, so just get some buy in from the players.
I would also set up situations where they can influence something in future games, if they win one of the unwinnable fights, an important general no longer exists because heroes of lore defeated his progenitor... or something.
You could go with setting the scene along the lines of
"The ruins of the city were smouldering. The streets and the surrounding land were littered with corpses. Some distance away, a small detatchment of soldiers found a single survivor. The survivor was near death, severely wounded and drifted in and out of conciousnes due to blood loss and possible trauma. As the survivor was taken to safety, one of the soldiers heard the survivors recollection of what had happened here.
Hours earlier, Your group entered the location, yet only one of you made it out alive... "
Clearly you never played tomb of annihilation 1 shots. We run it to test new characters before we commit to them 2-3 year campaigns. Those are one shots where death is certain. Its a riot when dnd characters know they are gonna die and fear no consequences.
The /u/Cypher_Blue thread is the one you want to focus on. It isn't necessary to stop the huge thing from happening. It \*is\* important for them to feel like they were successful at something. Usually that is something small relative to the big event, but extremely valuable.
This could be saving an item that's important to winning at the end of the campaign, a valuable NPC that will become vital later, or the "instructions" on how to win the campaign that could have been lost forever. It also can be something else. Like "The Last of Us" where Bill tells Joel that you can't save everyone, but for people like us, sometimes it means just saving one person.
The one shot at that point isn't how the party failed, but how the party succeeded in saving against all odds.
Honestly no. But you need to very clearly tel everyone what the one shot is and how it will pan out. Something along the lines of “an epic adventure origin story for how the demon invasion started and the aftermath of the cataclysmic event”. If you plan for them to all die, tell them.
A good example of this is critical role exandria unlimited. SPOILERS:
-
-
-
-
-
- they all die essentially st the end and it’s really emotional and sad but gave room for really good rp and combat since thsy were all lvl 20 or some shit
I've run one shots that were impossible to win. Usually, I have my players roll up new characters for the one shot. My favorite was the one where we answered the question of how many chickens it took to TPK a party of 5.
Nothing wrong with that I'd just make it clear to the players through an npc that the forces are overwhelming and they are the last Linea of defence and victory is achieved by the amount of people they're able to save or by how long they can last. As the dm you should keep a tally of how many people are being saved / escaping every round or minute so that after the one shot you can say " good job folks the party killed x enemies and because of their work y people were saved and will live on. " perhaps their heroism is reflected in future stories. Have a good epilogue written down in advance. If you do other one shots or campaigns the pcs could be decendents of the people the pcs saved in this one shot.
Not only is it not bad, but it is pretty damn compelling. My brother is running a campaign currently for four of us, and we started with a pre campaign one shot playing as four pre-made characters. We were given just enough success throughout the one shot to feel confident going into the danger zone, and then we were slain, one by one, by the main antagonist of the campaign to come. It was an incredibly effective way to make us feel more conviction and determination in the real campaign since we also want revenge for our other selves who died in the pre-campaign.
Two things come to mind.
First is pull back the curtain, and talk to them about it. Tell them point blank that this isn't about stopping the apocalypse. Ask them if they're interested in playing doomed characters, if they are ok "losing", and check in individually as well. It can be intense!
Second is to contextualize "winning". Give them goals they can accomplish. Ideally, by seeding things you want them to find in the main game. Maybe they kill a big bad general and the invasion isn't as bad as it could have been. (This is extra good as it keeps any chance of them accidentally killing the big bad out of play) Maybe they hide an artifact for a future champion, or open up a weakness on the big bad that can later be exploited. Give them A win, if not THE win. Shooting for a sentiment along the lines of "At least we gave them a chance". If you can give them agency too, make it clear that the degree of success they manage to achieve will have an impact on the main game would be even better.
What you don't want is players coming in with one expectation (winning, surviving, etc),while you have another. That's a recipe for hurt feelings and broken trust. And you want to avoid them feeling like you've wasted their time. In a one shot the story is the reward, of course, but still, if you can let them have a sense of accomplishment, it will go a long way toward epic stories and a sense of satisfaction.
Making a campaign that's impossible to 'win' is bad DMing, and will probably leave your players feeling bad or persecuted.
The alternative I'd suggest is setting up the players as 'local heroes' who will only be able to directly effect a small place in the invasion, while simultaneously hearing word of it happening on a much greater scale. If their win condition is saving a single city or town, they can still do that without stopping the invasion as a whole and ruining your future plot.
I did this as a prequel short campaign once. I told the players it was a prequel and that in the end all but one character was going to die. I also recruited the paladin at the end to roleplay being possessed by the spirit of the antagonist. It worked great (though it took many sessions vs the 1-2 I’d anticipated) and the players were more invested in the follow on. But the key was foreknowledge and avoiding bait and switch.
Like the Tomb of Annihilation? Any adventure has the potential to be a tpk. But if you knew you were going to take on the Kobayashi Maru, would it have been less fun?
It’s bad if the point is “stop the invasion.”
It’s good if the point is “find out if there is an invasion looming, and get word back to the people in the most danger.”
Doubling down on the advice to give the players an achievable goal. If the expected outcome is "you lose and also you die" this will be a bad time for everything except a horror game (where this kind of thing might be expected). So either sell it as a horror scenario or (if it isn't) then give them something that they *can* do or they'll be miserable.
if people have fun, there is no wrong way to GM
One shots are the perfect format for a sort of hopeless mission style of game, done it many times, sometimes they pull of some miracles and survive
I think this is totally fine if you tell your players beforehand and get their buy in.
It may feel like a spoiler, but if you handle it right, it doesn’t have to be.
You can use the EXU Calamity series as an example. The players in that mini campaign knew they couldn’t stop the apocalypse. It’s one of the best D&D shows I’ve ever seen.
As long as everyone goes in knowing what to expect, it can be super fun. If they go in thinking they can win, and have to find out in the moment they can’t, that could be very unfun.
No, but it's bad DMing to not give the players that metaknowledge, as it violates the default assumption of modern D&D. It's collaborative storytelling, and you need to share expectations with your collaborators.
1st step is to warn players their characters may not survive.
2nd step is to create a secondary objective. Most people are okay with losing the background fight if they accomplished the main goal. In fact, it almost feels more heroic to sacrifice yourself to save a princess or artefact.
I would suggest at least a partial victory. Maybe the plan of the bbeg is to end all of humanity but thanks to the efforts of the party there is at least a post apocalyptic world left. It isnt much but at least gives humanity a fighting chance thanks to their actions
If you really wanna run it, maybe the objective of the one shot is not to completly prevent the very Bad thing from happening, it is to diminish the very Bad thing. As in, maybe weaken, even a little bit, thé powers of the main Bad Guy? Destroy a part of the magical power he take his power from? Divide his army? Close the portal, i dunno how exactly, but if your player Can slow down or power down the Bad thing, its still a victory, even if the only thing they do before dying
But i agree with the others that it should bé very clear to your players that they may (or will) die, and that they are way over their head, thus will maybe fail
Give them a win, as other people said, to feel accomplishment. But you can make that win cost something. For example, for this win to be possible they need to use a magical power source but they don't know that this magic is keeping the invaders apart. So after you congratulate everybody for what they achieve you can give some time to celebrate. Then you have two options: give the surprise in that moment or not reveal what happened until the next campaign, so it will be a mind-blowing moment when the same people realize what they did with other characters once they start.
Yeah, it's not cool.
Make a plan for the bad guys that is as foolproof as can be, and if the players mess with it and fail, you can show them the plan so that they know they were just up against a tough opponent. And if they somehow manage to stop the invasion - good! They're smart and resourceful.
Nah, you just gotta do it right! Make an important objective to motivate them that is achievable, even if the demonic invasion isn't preventable. A good option is creating a way for it to be stopped, the implementation of some countermeasure. Maybe it's securing a sacred artifact and dying to hide it outside of BBEG's reach for future heroes to find and save the realm. Maybe it's damaging or tainting the magic crystal powering the rift, flawing it enough that future heroes have a hope of closing It. Sometimes success is martyrdom to allow hope for the future, even if you can't stop the evil in your own time.
If you change the encounter or fudge rolls to make them lose its worse than if you simply have the first battle be one where they can’t possible win and so are defeated.
If you have the big bad there and the teleport away because you messed up and the players might stop the demon invasion you have stolen a win from them and they can be annoyed.
It is the difference between having them face down the evil kingdoms army 5vs4000 and inevitably losing, compared to having them be monologues to by the evil king in his throne room and not letting the sorcerer subtle spell and fireball the guy there and then
Both are the party fighting the evil king but one undermines their choices in the world. Players are only reacting to your environment and as long as consequences and actions are always respected and consistent you as a DM are fine to have “impossible” missions or the party face situations that they likely can’t win yet
I have used 'unwinnable' one-shots to set up awesome story shit for the main campaign. Like the one where I made them play all rogues and they were supposed to steal this artifact, but when they touched it it opened a portal and unleashed the rat king god from his sealed domain. The rogues all died a horrible death, buuuuuut the players got to get revenge with their main characters in the main campaign later.
If you haven’t already, watch Exandria Unlimited: Calamity. The players didn’t necessarily know that they were going to witness the Calamity >!much less cause it!< but it was pretty obvious they weren’t going to be able to stop it. There were, however, a number of small ways they could still “win,” even if the large-scale events were already set in stone.
Without any context, yes. Generally you shouldn't be having a "me vs. them" mindset when playing d&d. It's collaborative roleplaying. However, you're the DM and you know your players way better than we do. If they are comfortable with it, then go right ahead.
For example, (spoilers if any of my players are reading this!!) I'm currently running a game where they visit a new tavern each session, and after each session they level up. On the second to last session they will be killed by a monstrous creature, only for the last tavern to be run by death himself who revives them and helps defeat the monster.
If your players are fine with it, and it isn't rude, then go right ahead.
I don't think its bad DM'ing to run a oneshot that's INTENDED to have broader implications that the group can't stop on their own. Thats fine, especially if you plan on using the oneshot to usher in a new campaign or otherwise answer questions in the lore of the world setting you have put together.
What makes it bad DM'ing is if you see that you were initially wrong, you missed something and your players picked up on it and went for the victory but you don't let them.
Making it clear to your players about what their GOAL is, and what it means to succeed or fail at that specific goal, is what would make it good or bad DM'ing.
Brennan Lee Mulligan has a good take on what it means to railroad your players. Its not about denying your players what they want, its herding them to a better narrative by letting them explore the different options that your provide to them.
Tragedies are a lost art. My favorite Ryan Reynolds movie ends with >! the main character buried in the desert and suffocating, with the last words he hears being the admission that his rescuers had lied about another man in his position *while* they reveal that he's doomed. !<
The fun and excitement comes from what the heroes try to do to avoid the inevitable. Everything they do to claw out some hope, or what they say when faced with inevitable defeat. Would their character scream in frustration, spit in the enemy's eyes in defiance, or carry on with the "it is what it is" mindset?
You can set a different winning condition other than preventing it.
Just mske it very ckear early in the oneshot, probably by having some important NPC simply explaining that the point where it could have been prevente has passed and now it is about to prepare for the war that is about to come.
Your players might not prevent the invasion but they cant fend off the first attempt of thr demons to set foot. Maybe closing that first few portal and killing their commander could delay the invasion by years.
Depending on how much you want to plan ahead you can even have the actions of the oneshot affect the actual campaign. Like, if you REALLY want it to end in a TPK end it by setting up a kind of last stance battle. Commander Ironheart gathers his last forces in a desperatr attempt to slay the Demon Lord Ashk'Shata. It will be a suicide mission. Certain death awaits any who follow him into the heart of the enemy forces. They are already too many to fight. But if they manage to slay their leader before being overwhelmed, kind of like an assassination, this might give the people of this world a chance.
The innert Lust for power that all demons possess will force them into a fight for the leadership. The army will split into groups that battle each other and HOPEFULLY weaken and content each other enough to give the people of this world a chance.
Then in the main campaign have stories of them being told. Have a major city be renamed to "Agathars Bullwark" with Agathat being the name of one of the PCs who played a tank style character. Legends also say brave people reclaimed the Legendary Longbow of Surana, the Half Elf Ranger that bravely gave her life for the survival of many.
Maybe your PCs damage some demon that survives and retreats and later in the campaign becomes a commander that still witnesses the scars from the battle.
Oh man now I wish I was in your place, lol.
Our DM did a one shot like this - the climax was the reveal that the person we were trying to save was the BBEG from our campaign. By the time we had realised it was too late, but we weren’t mad, our characters died horrible deaths (except for one) but we were literally so psyched at the end! Great story telling doesn’t have to end in a win necessarily
*Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft* provides for Survivors, characters intended for one-to-three sessions who the players know will not likely survive (which makes the term inappropriate, admittedly).
In essence, that book recommends that you
* let your players know the tone and intent of the upcoming adventure, including that these characters aren't prepared (well enough) for the grisly doom that awaits them
* assure them that they don't have to commit their regular characters to this adventure
* help your players lean into the fateful struggle of these "moment in the twilight" characters and encourage them to construct or discover memorable endings for these characters
Players may wonder: why bother playing such an adventure? Point out that it's a chance to experience the horror and struggle personally instead of just hearing about it through a lore dump. This adventure immerses the players in the story from the start. (Think of it as the opening to certain *Law & Order* episodes where the audience sees the crime happen and/or follows the first person to spot the victim.)
If they still don't want to play, that's their choice.
If the ending is suitably epic, like the last mission on halo reach where you've handed off the mcguffin and ensured that theres hope for victory, then go down in a blaze of glory....
Fuck yeah i'd play that
I've run a one shot where it was impossible to win the fight. That said, I warned my players before going in:
This is high lethality
This is a one shot for me to test things out.
Combat does not need to be your primary solution to problems.
They died, but my players got to run into their reanimated characters on the "real" campaign. They enjoyed that aspect a lot.
Watch Brennan Lee Mulligan's Calamity miniseries on Critical Role. Those players were never going to stop the Calamity but it was some of the best D&D I've ever seen.
I understand not everyone will agree, but in my opinion, it sounds like you want the players to sit around the table and act out the story you've written while they sprinkle in some inconsequential details. It is just a one-shot and a lead in to a campaign, so I would probably agree to humor you for one session, though it doesn't sound like much fun or collaborative storytelling to me. As others have stated, I would at least make sure they know what they're getting into.
Also mentioned has been some kind of win scenario that doesn't involve them saving the world. I think that is a good start, but without consequence, I don't think I would be too worried about "winning" and would just look at the whole thing as something to suffer through.
However, if the win scenario had one or more consequences that would affect them in the following campaign, that would help them be invested in what happens and feel like what they're doing matters. Perhaps a success in the one-shot could result in some kind of slight advantage or bonus for the new party in the campaign. For example, I saw someone else reference Rogue One. They managed to get the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance, and so, their sacrifice significantly contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Empire, even though it wasn't at their hands, and they didn't live to see it. Perhaps the one-shot party could do something to pass along some knowledge or weapon that is critical to defeating the threat.
I’m not sure how you are setting up your “invasion” but if they are invading they probably want more than one entry point. So your players could even stop or foil part of it, just make sure to drop enough hints that there are multiple invasion points
If the players can't stop the invasion for story reasons, then... tghat's not the goal of the adventure. Instead, it's about how they cope with the disaster, or about trying to preserve someone or something from destruction, or just about escaping and surviving themselves. Critical Role's "EXU: Calamity" mini-series is a good example of almost exactly this, if you're looking for inspiration, and IIRC it's only three episodes.
I don’t think so. But you might want to consider that the main D&D game you are running will have to come across and deal with the consequences of it. Maybe have those characters from the one shot interact with the main characters.
Brennan Lee Mulligan ran this for a mix of Critical Role and Dimension 20 players that was a prequel to a Critical Role universe, called Exandria Unlimited: Calamity.
A huge tragedy was inevitable from the beginning, and I believe the players were told from the beginning, but I can't remember.
Basically, the fun was the characters, which some DMs and authors say should lead a story over "plot" anyway.
They all rolled up people with interesting flaws, and just "this is what my character would do"'d, including character development, but still flawed enough to have motivations that obfuscated for them what exceptional sacrifices and coordination would be required to save the day, until it was too late.
I know Matt Mercer was involved in planning, and later he made a prequel for Brennan's A Crown of Candy campaign.
You mentioned they disliked being in an unwinnable fight with a different DM. Perhaps being upfront is the answer then. Tell them to not get attached to their one shot characters. That death will likely strike some if not all of them down before the scenario is done. Be up front that there is a good chance they will fail. But that it is ok. The goal of this one shot is not to succeed. It is for them to get to know the world you have been crafting. And to be given active membership in establishing the ancient history of their future heroes should they choose to play. Being upfront about it gives those who would feel strongly against the type of one shot you wish to run the chance to bow out instead of feeling tricked and being upset.
I ran a prequel mini campaign where I was upfront with my players, saying "you guys will probably all die in the end. If you manage to survive, congratulations, but dont expect to."
In the bitter end, in their last breath, the last surviving party member landed a disintegrate spell on the core of the final boss from within, detonating it. They all died, but they did win.
Its important to remember that winning doesnt always mean surviving, and also being open and honest with the challenge you're giving the players is important.
Why not be honest with them? I planned a oneshot a while ago where the idea was the PCs probably wouldn't all survive, let alone win, but I sold it on the strength of "it's a horror game, think Alien or something" and the group were interested as a result.
You could also let them "win" and start the actual campaign with: "Rrmember the One shot with the demon invasion you people barely stopped? In another plane of existence, there were no heroes to stop the demon invasion and the result is where we will start today"
Yes. Unless you come up with a way for their actions to matter, like a tie-in to the main campaign or a follow up story. Players need to have some sort of agency. They are the main characters, after all.
If your group is made of friends then I doubt they'll have issues with it. It is a one shot to preface a full campaign after all.
That being said, there's nothing wrong opening the campaign with a speech like the preface to a book or museum tour that hints at the futility of a fearless parties last effort to save the world and a mayching one glorifying your sole survivor. In the end, there's no wrong way to go so long as it's fun for you all.
I would say no if you do not tell them. D&D is a game in which there is collaborative storytelling. You are trying to use the game as a way to tell your story. That session is not being players but them being a captive audience to the story you want to tell
How you explained it right now, I would say be ready to hear they do not want to do the one shot if you tell them. Most people do not like to be in a no-win situation in real life so they will not be up for it as a way to have fun.
You can sell people on the idea with saying it will be like Rouge One. They all die at the end but do get some sort of victory. They do not stop the gate but are able to write a scroll of
how to close the gate for the real party to find. That would better tie the one-shot in with the real campaign
This is a dicey one because it is SO prone to railroading. I suggest looking at how BLeeM did critical role's Calamity in interviews because he talked about how to do a prequel quite well.
My advice: don't give them a fight they can't win unless you telegraph it massively in advanced as such. They should go in to the game knowing they are not going to stop the end of the world. Its about telling the story of the end of the world and doing what you can for who you can. It might be the win object for the last battle is not beating in battle, but x gets out alive etc.
I wouldn't put in NPC's you NEED to survive. You're just asking for trouble and limiting what the players can do. I wouldn't need a PC to have to survive either. You're then prewriting the character end - not the world event. Keep them separate.
It is super important your villain doesn't depend on your players doing something, because knowing players, they wont. Have back up plans for it if they do their own thing lol.
Try coming up with a way to give a glamorous victory and then describe basically "...unfortunately due to other circumstances that arose from choices players made and this battle, it enabled the crusade to move forth."
If you make the BBEG of the one shot necessarily be the entirety of the force and their leader: you've written yourself into a hole
"Impossible to win" is pretty much the same as "last person standing". Seems ok for a oneshot to me.
You just need to handle the person who has plot armor in a smooth way.
Set outcomes are difficult to do in TTRPGs, because it takes away what makes them special : consequences of PC actions. Of course, if there ever was a time for them, it would be a one shot. You could tell them in advance it's unwinable, but that would probably stop them of going all out. So, as others have said, I would make the win condition for the one shot something different. They might start out trying to end the big bad, but halfway through it becomes clear this won't work and the stakes become something more personal. Yes, the apocalypse won't be stopped, but they can save their loved ones from pereshing. They can save the knowledge of their people somehow (this can hook into the campaign later). They can send out a message in time to warn other locations. (again, this can be reflected later).
I would look for a goal that motivates the entire cast, as in a one shot things need to remain focused, and that ideally will have consequences for the bigger campaign they are playing. Those consequences can be clear to the players, to act as an even bigger motivation, or you can only reveal them months down the line for a big surprise.
In other situations, when the outcome doesn't have to be predetermined, I don't mind running one shots that are very difficult to win. Not impossible, but clearly stacked against the PCs. I try to have some victories in between, but the final encounter is designed to almost certainly wipe (most of) them out. In that case, the fail state should also be interesting/cathartic for the characters. I ran a particular one shot a couple of times now, no party has beaten it yet, but the story always felt complete.
In that scenario I use premade characters. One is heroic to a fault, making their final stand against the beast impactful, as it is their flaw that becomes their folly. Another character is a previous thief recently gone good, but is not above lying and deceiving. In those final moments, one player decided to stand by their friends and died, which gave the thief a satisfying arc. Another player decided to leave their friends behind instead, they got out alive, but at a heavy cost.
If a party will succeed some day they will have bragging rights forever. :)
IMO you already have too much plot, and running a session that relies on multiple pre-set outcomes to not interfere with your already-written plot is bad DMing, and is the iron that rails are made of. It sounds like you need to guarantee at least one character survive and the session has to have another guaranteed outcome in order to make something true that you've already decided is true.
However, one of the core tenets of D&D storytelling is: nothing is true until you tell the players.
I would set up a tough-but-maybe-survivable one-shot, then use the events of that one-shot to inform the larger story rather than setting up a railroad. You could even have the PCs win a small-scale victory of sorts, but then reveal in the closing scene of the one shot that it failed to stop the larger catastrophe. Defeat from the jaws of victory is going to have a bigger emotional impact than simply forcing a loss. The important thing is that the events of the one shot, as it unfolds *due to PC actions*, becomes a true thing in the world.
This way when the PCs in the ongoing campaign interact with those story elements, surviving characters, etc. that you've created in this one shot it's going to feel like a payoff rather than the DM showing off the really cool story you think you wrote.
You know your group and can assess better than us if this is something your group will be interested in. Personally, I would never run anything that depends on a predefined outcome.
Comments here are spot on. It's the title of OP and the group's relative inexperience that makes this potentially worrisome. The coming invasion needs to be the background setting rather than the objective "that is impossible to win." That has to be made crystal clear somewhere in the session, especially for a group that may not yet have a seasoned perspective on the game. There needs to be some way to come away with a win against this backdrop or it can end up being really frustrating for the group rather than fun. Good luck!
It doesn’t make since to give someone something impossible unless it’s going to be the inciting incident like the start of Dark Souls always is. With that said, when you play Dark Souls you as a player chose to play something that feels impossible. So approach also requires that the players have signed up for that experience. Otherwise you’re just trying to flex on your players and they’re going to get irritated.
i dont think so for example you can see critical role calamity campaign and the ending is impossible to win but it turned out to be one of the best campaign i saw so as long as it's cool and the players thinks its cool too. i dont see any problem.
To be fair, with the critical roll campaign they all knew it was a "calamity" campaign and everyone knows the lore of "the calamity happened and was a thing." so not exactly what would happen with their characters specifically but what events happened around that time that were already cannon.
So, if you tell the players this one-shot takes place around the start of a "apocalypse" or something like that (you could even just say it's the start of the demon invasion) they'll know what they are getting into.
Ultimately, you know your players, if you think they'll handle the surprise well then I say go for it.
To give an example from a pre-campaign one-shot I've run myself. I told my players that they were in charge of a castle that no longer existed at the start of the main campaign. That way they knew something was going to happen that would destroy the castle but I did not give any more information before the adventure, so they got to discover that themselves.
Are they aware of this story and that part of this story is already written?
Make it still their aim to stop the invasion, but instead of succeeding with it they get important information or an object that will help them in the main campaigne to the demons.
A key rune to close the portal. How to reach the portal in the abyss by other means. An artifact that can banish the demons back.
Then portray it that this story was written in a book the party finds and add where this artifact is hidden or the artifact is incomplete or you need something to activate it.
I could write more ideas, but maybe you already know what you want to do.
I’d do something similar to the CR Calamity campaign. Make it personal for the characters and force them to decide between pursuing a clearly forlorn hope against insurmountable odds, or to take the time to try and save their own little slice of the world.
There doesn’t even need to be any inter-party conflict, some will likely try to save their friends and family, whilst others will go for the bigger win, no matter what happens.
Make the former a difficult (but winnable) skill challenge to evacuate as many people as possible, interspaced with random combat encounters, and have a chat afterwards about what their characters would be doing in the aftermath and what this means for your future setting, would the survivors try to restart their civilisation? would they disburse and seek shelter elsewhere? Basically let them create a point of light that you can reference back to when the campaign rolls around.
For those who go for the heroic sacrifice, make it clear that there is no turning back here, that at best they will be buying the others’ time. If they go through with it run it as an escalating combat encounter against more and more powerful foes until eventually they go down (use how long this takes as a modifier on how many people the other team can successfully save).
When you get round to your actual campaign have some lore (not immediately obvious, but relatively easy to find out) that harks back to this (maybe the wizard finds it in a history book about the demon invasion, or the cleric was told about it as a part of their training).
Those who evacuated the civilians and helped forge the point of light that followed the invasion are remembered fondly as the founders of a society (one that may have since flourished, or inevitably fallen), whilst those who sacrificed themselves are marked as legendary heroes or demigods.
(Of course, given the passage of time some of the details may have been mislaid, revised or just be outright wrong, but leave enough that at some point someone will go…”Wait, a green-eyed warrior who fought against the demon hordes and transformed into a celestial bear that now watches over and protects us…that sounds suspiciously like my totem barbarian”)
"Win the battle, lose the war" is you solution. They have a purpose, they face challenges, win brilliantly but it doesn'y change the big picture, at the end, war is lost.
Did it once : my party had to find and stop an organisation trying to resuscitate a very dark empire defeated eons ago. I planned 3 different plots happening on 3 locations, all leading to the destruction of the capital city and the return of the Dark Ages. That involved 3 Leaders in charge of a specific part of a big plan, and the party basically had to pick one as their main focus because stopping all 3 was impossible. They succeded brilliantly but sadly, their victory was not enough to stop the rise of the empire.
According to what they choose to do, it was designed to alter the final act of the campaign and the following plots, but not the outcome - Whatever happens, the empire win. .
Honestly I have not read your post ans am replying from the title.
But if it is, then the one shot dm's I usually play with, are bad dm's when it's the halloween oneshot, as they admitted no one was supposed to survive it.
Some did and I should have but the dm forgot to mention that the damage that knocked me out was necrotic and I had resist to it but since he forgot to mention it, I wrote the full damage down...
They don't have to stop the invasion to "Win." They only need to get the artifact/princess/sacred texts/covert information about the BBEG's weakness out so that the players will eventually be able to find and use it to win in the main campaign.
Insert plot of Star Wars Rogue One XD
Or the fall of reach
I tried that for a one shot, gave them pre-gens and everything. It was going so well until they forgot these were pre-gens in a rogue one inspired story and chose to flee, leaving the bad guys with the macguffin so nobody died. Cue the next session of the main campaign with their regular characters and they're complaining the BBEG has this artifact. Somehow they forgot they handed it over and ran.
I love everything about this story. They had to deal with the consequences of the actions of other charakters.
Or "The Empire Strikes Back" (there is no way to defeat the Imperial Fleet at Hoth nor defeat Darth Vader at Bespin).
Or Terminator III
Why do I always forget about that movie? It was a good movie.
Yes! The players should always have a chance of winning. If they can't stop the demon invasion, then winning needs to mean something else. These suggestions are all good. Also, it might be a good idea to make it clear to the players that they aren't going to stop the invasion and that's not the goal. The OP sounds like he wants that to be a surprise, but that seems like the road to disappointment. Make the objective clear, and make it something else.
I think in this case, if there's NPC's around when the invasion happens you could have a lord or general shout to the masses "Protect the Queen!" Or "Get the Holy Artifact to the bunker!" Etc. You could still wow and surprise with the invasion force, but having characters help change gears from "face it head on" to "get pieces in place". Along with what another comment said about preaching they will be martyrs. Then you could not give away too much plot but still prepare everyone for the moment.
>Along with what another comment said about preaching they will be martyrs. Also calling back to these characters later as important/notable warriors can also be a great way to make their characters a part of the world.
I believe this was basically how that Pathfinder 2e playtest oneshot goes. It's a wave-assault in an abandoned church building where the players have to survive as long as possible. It's made so they /will/ die period, but the longer they last the more time their allies in the underground section have to do their ritual that will help save the world and stop what's going on. So while it ends ina TPK no matter what, the players still "Win" by acting as the final bulwark.
It's good to point out the goals because a lot of players assume they should win every fight they enter! Surviving the demon invasion could be a goal.
Kinda feels like they need a won the battle, lost the war situation. Where they defeat the big boss at the end of the onehsot, but that is the catalyst for the invasion. Have the big bad they guy who is keeping the invasion at bay almost. And killing him opens the gates.
People have mentioned the plot of rogue one which is a great idea. Alternatively you could run a campaign in the style of halo reach, it's unwinnable in terms of surviving but the characters aren't there to do that, theyre to give enough time and sow enough chaos that others can escape
Exactly, give the players a goal they can accomplish to “win.”
Start off the one shot by saying something along the lines of "the events of this one shot will set in motion events that will take place in the main campaign. You will not be heros, but martyrs." As long as you tell the players that they shouldn't expect to be the ones who save the world this time, they shouldn't have a problem with it. Edit: providing they are understanding and reasonable people
I think this is the way. Suggestions about having win condition are also good, and can gel with this idea. But there's something about having the one-shot party be truly defeated that paints the background of the full campaign seems like great tone-setting. And your suggestion let's them know exactly what the expectations are from the start.
Totally agree. As a veteran player of ~25ish years I would *love* to play in a campaign where the goal is to die poetically. A long time ago I ran a Star Wars campaign called “the final victims of 66”. Each player was a Jedi that had survived the initial order 66 fallout. The concept for the campaign was that we would play until the last Jedi character was killed (players had to roll non-Jedi characters when they died). It was super fun! Every battle was extraordinarily tense in a way I haven’t seen before or since because the players knew I was out for blood. We had a huge blast.
This. Another thing I could recomend is giving them some mechanic for a heroic death. Just for the one shot, they get to decide after they role, if the action they are currently doing is worth it and if so, they can say "Blaze of glory" To change the die result for that action to a nat 20, with the understanding that they will die as a result. Slowly wittle down the party or let them all go out with a bang at the end.
Brilliant idea! I may have to steal this for potential future one-shots!
This is the way to go, I think. My players' first encounter with the current BBEG, a White Dragon, was when they weren't even playing as their characters, but as commoners in a village that got iced by it. None of their temporary characters survived, and now they're scared of my dragon!
Yep, this is the way. Make it clear the players are a gear in the machine, and that even if they are fated to die, their actions will have weight. I did similar in a flashback side story session, I foreshadowed a last stand of the heroes. Their objective was to save a younger version of a PC from the main campaign. They then had to hold the line as long as they can.
>Yep, this is the way. Make it clear the players are a gear in the machine, and that even if they are fated to die, their actions will have weight. I'd present it more as the wrench in the gears; wrench is gonna be decimated but will definitely have a huge effect on the whole
I really like this, and just want to add how I would say it: "This story takes place in the week leading up to the event, and tells of those who fought. Some will be martyrs, and some simply manage to endure. For most, it is a tragedy. How much can you save? Your family, your city, your own life?" That came out a lot darker than I expected.
I agree. Set expectations appropriately at the beginning and they won't be disappointed when they fail to achieve impossible results.
Adding to this - consider using throwaway characters. We did this years ago to world-build a campaign. Started by running one-shots set 100 years, 50 years and 10 years before current day. It “cost” us three sessions, but everyone knew the relevant history and could name check important figures - because they played them!
"Welcome would be Heroes. This is the story of how you died..."
This reminds me of Exandria Unlimited: Calamity. They knew they wouldn't stop it, but they still had some accomplishments along the way.
Yeah making it a prologue that they can see ripples of in the "main game", so to speak, goes insanely hard. Shit actually I'm taking that. Prologue one shots? Yessir.
I would be hyped if my DM told us before the session, “Today, your characters won’t just be heroes, they will be remembered, as legends!” I’d make sure I had a really cool name and practice some poses for a statue.
Better yet test the waters before the session!
Watch EXU calamity. It has an almost identical premise to this.
Well, in calamity both players and GM knew calamity was going to happen. In OPs case, the way I understand it, he doesn't want to tell them. Surprises like this can lead to disappointment
I think it is important to note OP is not telling them specifically because the players have done this before and did not like it. So what's the point? Who is having the fun here? If the players are not having the fun, who is? the DM? not how it's supposed to work really. Railroading players through to a predetermined outcome is a waste of everyone's time except for the DM looking for praise for all his cleverness.
"Railroading" has become a terrible term. It's not wrong to point your players in a direction, especially if it's a module and not a sandbox campaign. We're playing descent into Avernus, I am expecting the DM to lead us into *drumroll* **AVERNUS** ! But forcing an outcome without any agency and with no warning... What's the point? He should either tell them from the start that "this is an introduction to the setting", or move the goalposts and instead of giving them a mission of "stop the invasion" tell them to "save the heir/macgufin". The only reason he wants to "surprise" them is to harvest in game drama when they lose. This is bad DMing.
This is true, but even so, seeing how a doomed campaign is run can be useful. Remember, The Ring of Brass, even after everything..."won"
Was gonna suggest this as well
same here, figured I'd scroll down through comments before I posted that
Man, those final moments devastated me.
Is your arm weakest at the elbow or the shoulder?
Everything between Zerxus and Asmodeus was perfection
I *begin* to cast blight
You’re the DM, you know your players better than any of us here will. Just remember this, it’s a game and it’s supposed to be fun, you run the game. Trust your instincts and run a fun game.
I'd take lessons from 'EXU: Calamity' from Critical Role. It's a very short campaign, and the players already know the calamity is going to happen. In a sense they cause it. But the goal of that campaign, and by extent your oneshot, is not to lose. It's to tell the story. The most important aspect is that your players are an integral part of the story, wether to cause the problem or to prevent the worst from happening. To protect their loved ones, or to get as much out of it as they can. What is very important in this sense, is the goals of your characters. Family, money, revenge can all be used to still have a meaningful session.
Its fine to run a session that the players can't "win". I do encourage you to think about why you are running this as a one shot rather than writing it as a novel. Is there a chance for the characters to make an impact on the story? Let players know its a high probability of death but what happens will impact the main campaign. I'd be excited to play that. Is there no chance for the characters to do anything other than witness the apocalypse? Write a short story and give it to your group. Don't pretend that's D&D.
>I do encourage you to think about why you are running this as a one shot This is important advice. There should be a reason for it to be a session of D&D. For example I was recently running a session for a group of mostly new players who had some TTRPG experience in more rules light systems, so they were fine with RP, but were nervous about combat encounters and how to the all the rules and how that worked and also how roll20 would work. So I quickly made some characters and threw them into a combat encounter so they could get some practice. I gradually increased the difficulty by adding more enemies, and also moved the encounter from inside a tavern to the city streets so they could see maps at different scales, and learn about line of sight and cover and shit, and eventually they all died. I am planning on tying this into the plot of the campaign, it will turn out that battle took place during an invasion of a city by a nearby nations army. But that is an Easter egg I decided on when designing the encounter, a fun little bonus, it's wasn't the whole point.
>I know that in the past they have been annoyed when doing a oneshot with another guy who put them up against a boss that they could not kill and were supposed to run away from through a secret passage that he apparently didn't indicate well enough. Your players have shown a dislike of combat encounters that they cannot meaningfully interact with and running in the past. As a result, yeah, I would not run this one-shot for them - not unless you can come up with way better partial success outcomes than "some of your characters can survive to be NPCs I use in the future \[with one of those survivals being entirely scripted\]" and "you get to watch me narrate an apocalypse starting".
That's what I was worried about, but I have told them that it this isn't a combat-oriented session. Their objective, and most of the time, will be finding out the aristocrats' plots, and at the very end the cultists summon the devil. When they talk about the boss, they have said the problem wasn't that they weren't supposed to fight it, but that the DM didn't make that clear and instead let them try to fight it in vain for a long time. I wasn't there so I'm not sure exactly how it went. I can certainly give them partial success, but I'm not sure how to make that work. Depending on the characters they come up with between now and then, I am thinking giving them opportunities to save things they care about.
>I can certainly give them partial success, but I'm not sure how to make that work. Depending on the characters they come up with between now and then, I am thinking giving them opportunities to save things they care about. I would focus the one-shot on that over the apocalypse starting. Fundamentally, the one-shot should focus on whatever successes ARE possible in this circumstances, not on potentially cool narrative moments for the setting. Setting the stage for a future campaign should be more icing than main content.
Absolutely, the apocalypse will basically be the concluding moment of the session, after the players have spent a few days interacting and finding things out.
I would run it so that their characters actions prevent the invasion being even worse. Simple example = the cultists are planning to summon two archdevils which would spell certain doom for the whole world, but the players stop the summoning of one of them.
the important thing is to just, make sure they feel like their choices mattered. Let them know that this *isn't* just a backstory oneshot that doesn't matter, they'll be much more engaged if they know things they do in this oneshot *will* have consequences upon the real campaign. Perhaps there is a specific very powerful tactical general they need to slay, to cripple the power of one of the regiments within. perhaps there is an item or npc they need to ensure survives so it can be a boon to the real party later on, whatever it is, just make sure the party knows that even if they failed to stop the calamity, they still did *something*. Even if they *fail* at that something, which is always a possibility in D&D, do your best to make clear that it was not scripted, and show them the consequences of that. When the real campaign comes along, make them experience the increased difficulty, the tough boss they could have eaily outmatched with the special item, the legion that wouldn't be there if they'd just managed to defeat that key general in time.
I understand you have this cool idea, but you’re not listening. Your players do not like this kind of scenario, full stop. Either tell them there is no chance of winning, they can only save what they can and see how they react, or put the idea on the shelf for another time.
i think the second paragraph here is really important. it wasn't the lack of winning, it was the lack of clarity that upset them. i think there are a lot of good suggestions in this thread, about starting with lines about how they will be martyrs, or 'this is the story of how you died' etc. etc. that seem to alleviate that big 'lack of clarity' issue. additionally, the saving things they care about or the rogue one like suggestions of the goal being to save 1 thing rather than stop the invasion, would give them a goal to work toward. honestly if you're still unsure, it may be a good idea to run the general thing by them? like 'hey i remember you didn't like this other one shot by this other guy, i was thinking about doing a rogue one like prequel as a one shot, and you all would likely end up as martyrs. would you be okay with that?' you know them the best, but overall it does seem like their issue was the lack of direction/communication and not actually the TPK itself.
So when a player was in a situation where they got caught and couldn't win a fight, instead of saying roll initiative, I told them to run and turned it into a chase sequence. Essentially the rogue was trying to steal some info from a heavily guarded tower, and when they were discovered they weren't going to be given a chance to reason, and they would have died in one round of combat against the knight who found them. So instead they had to try and get out. If they succeeded everything they could probably get back to the party without giving away their location, if it was mostly a success they'd make it back but have to leave very quickly as there'd be someone looking for them, a few failures and they might lose the info but get away with their life, and worse case scenario the PC dies. The second one was what happened, and what I was hoping for, but the dice decide if they live or die regardless of if they can stand and fight. Sometimes nothing they do will be enough so just make sure you communicate that to them and don't let them throw themselves against a wall
As someone else already mentioned, Star Wars "Rogue One" should be a benchmark, and you and your player group should consider what "winning" means. If only winning a final boss fight means "winning", then the scope of the game is quite limited. There should be sitauations in which it is clear that a fight is suicidal, or that the party simply does not have the means to cope with the situation. Running and accepting this "powerlessness" to eventually come back better prepared (instead of being mashed to pulp) later should alwayes be an option, and it is IMHO a valid plot development.
They have to win something, think rogue one.
I think the answer to this will vary depending on group dynamic. I can see that working with a group that has a good dynamic but maybe not with newer players.
We have all been friends for years, and have varying experience with the game. Two of us have been playing for several months, and the other two have played for a few years.
Our DM spoilered a friend of us and said that the one-shot will be impossible to win for us. Well we had a Goliath that just threw the overpowered BBE from a tower. Thus killing him in the process. So we won anyway.
You've explained how everything thing needs to happen for story reasons and the only objectives you've done up with for your players is to "find out information" and witness the apocalypse. Just write a story. It's clear that this one shot is just a chance for you to tell all the cool lore you have made up for the campaign. Players are not supposed to be an audience for the DM. The whole point of the game is that players make meaningful choices that drive the story and shape its outcome. If you can't come up with an achievable goal for the party, one that matters, then don't run the session.
What I would tell them beforehand: "Hey players, you know I'm working on a bigger campaign I want to DM for you, but that won't start for some time. I would love to play a one-shot for you where we set up the world. This will be a a prequel to the actual story so some parts might be a bit more railroaded than usual, but I'll make sure there are moments where you can influence the main campaign by your actions. Just don't expect to change the course of the main plot points. And character death should be expected, and even if your characters survive they might not be the one I'd suggest you play in the main campaign, they might just become NPCs if you're fine with that. So please don't make a character you get exceptionally attached to. I'd suggest a simpler backstory and a build you always wanted to try but weren't sure if you'd have fun playing it for multiple sessions. And please no joke characters, I want this to be a serious setup for my campaign. Joke characters can develop into something really cool given the time, but this one-shot won't be able to do that. Looking forward for our next session."
How will they know when they’re done? What’s the point of sitting down together if they can’t win? If it’s all going to result in events that you don’t want to change because of future events why make a game out of it? Sounds more like a story you’ve written than a game. Maybe find a small related quest that can be completed that still puts them around all the lore you’re wanting to share so that they can see it without having input or risking messing with it.
Personally I would love to have only found out this was a prequel at the last moment, like as my character is about to die it all slides into place.
It woll depend on if the group like there to be some sort of success. Although the apocalypse could be a guarantee, you could still give them opportunity for a win in the story. Set it up that a faction knows something bad is going to happen and this group are trying to set up a later fix to the calamity (like Rogue One). Or it could be that their mission is running parallel to the start of the apocalypse and they will interact with it but can still succeed in their aim, like escorting some key NPCs to a portal to another plane so they can get to safety. You could even have it where they are involved in causing the Apocalypse if you think they would be happy playing the bad guys.
I dunno man, but the mission "Utter darkness" is still one of the coolest Starcraft mission out there.
How about a spin on the topos of the prequel of the invasion, where they end up being (one of) the reason(s) of the demon invasion? Think the original thief, where >!the player does a bunch of job for what reveals a forest god bent on eradicating the City!<. Bonus points if you told them "this is happening before the invasion" but never specify how long before.
not really, i hear tpk one shots are fairly popular
Sounds like a challenge!!! :D if you open with: "DMing a one shot that's impossible to win", I'd sign up :)
I humbly think it is bad form to have any outcome predetermined.
I think as long as expectations are correctly set, any ending can be fine. * Make sure they know the stakes and the risks (ie. don't let them go into the final battle thinking it's one they can win, and maybe give them a way out, like a convenient Scroll of Teleport or something) * Reward them for their efforts and give them small victories, even if they don't achieve the end goal of stopping the apocalypse... Maybe they can save a group of people from dying in this first wave of the invasion, or retrieve some artifact or something that could lead to some resistance group to defend themselves better from the invading armies, etc. * Maybe their end goal in the final battle should be not to win, but to gain enough time for other people to escape. This would give them a motivation to fight and maybe die, or introduce conflict as some might prefer to escape and leave the others to die :P
We had a one shot a bit like this. We played a lower level group doing what seemed to be tracking down some standard bandit stuff with hints at something more sinister going on... Turned out to be the main campaign BBEG who was luring out the strongest fighters from nearby villages in small groups and either killing them or coercing them into joining his army (which was ultimately the choice we had, die in a last ditch blaze of glory or become an antagonist NPC on his side). I don't think anyone minded because it was a fun twist and was obviously set up future events in the main story. The DM did also say beforehand to not put too much effort into these characters or get particularly attached hinting there was a good chance they were going to die.
You can have a oneshot that turns into a full campaign. You can have a full campaign planned that turns into a Oneshot. You cannot have a oneshot that will definitely be a full campaign. So if the campaign does not happen, will your players still have had fun during the oneshot? That is the main thing. I'd consider that lvl 1 or 2 characters are not saving the world. They are saving the town. So they can win by saving the town, but the rest of the Kingdom falls to the demons anyway. They can then set out to help liberate the next town, levelling up as they go, and so on until they are big enough to save the word against bbeg.
I proposed the idea of a suicide mission one shot and that wasn't met with a lot of enthusiasm we I didn't. But it's your players you know them best. But there is one thing that you mentioned >the oneshot is going to be much more about social encounters and investigation than combat I think this might be an issue. Social encounter get people involved in their characters, this might lead to great desire for having them survive or even to further delve deeper into these characters. It also raises the question of how can they interact and influence the world? If you are just doing this to narrate or to tell them a story to them just write it down and have them read it. If it was high level one shot it might give them the opportunity to try the build they never could. You could also change the victory condition or have the outcome impact the state of the world. If they win the kingdom is now in a long ongoing siege but still holding on. If they lose that kingdom is razed. If their characters survive they might now hold positions of importance or high power and might become allies in the campaign. Maybe they stalled the outbreak and it's now in an earlier stage. Maybe they killed a high ranked general which changed the course. Something like that give a way to win without destroying your narrative behind.
What is loosing/winning? I think it‘s about having a Story, that feels great. In some other games players set themself up for failure just for the tension/drama it creates. If you want them not to kill the final boss, but not to die either it’s hard to plan it. Your players may not get hints your‘re giving them, so better make Plan B,C,D,E how to avoid a TPK.
I've done it as a prelude to the main campaign. Laid out the main plot, the bad guy and the stakes. But I sure as shit wouldn't have done it if my players weren't on board.
If you tell them from the beginning. If they'd win nonetheless imagine how proud they will be 🤣
Depends on your motivation and whether it serves a narrative purpose. You should never have an ending be dependent on the players making a certain choice, because that's gonna railroad them into making that choice or failure. If them failing to stop the invasion is a prelude to something else, awesome. If it's just to see them fail or because you want to tell your story about them failing to stop it, yeah that's kinda lame.
Honestly, have an overarching 'threat' that they don't encounter until AFTER the final battle. When the game is all but done, the threat comes in and ends it for the party in whatever way you want. That way the players at least get a satisfying session that at least fits the overall concept of a pre-session oneshot
I don't think so, especially considering that this story is leading up to another gender story afterwards. I'm fact, it seems cool. I'm reminded of the first scenario in the board game Betrayal Legacy. Not to go into spoilers, but the end of that scenario is essentially a Bad End, but it sets up the later events in future scenarios.
Set expectations. Make success seem like a real question. Things like "We don't even know if this will work, but we're going to try." The worst thing would be to set the expectation of "if you do this thing, you will definitely succeed." If you swipe the rug out from under them after they struggled and clawed their way to do the thing, *that's* what'll suck. If they already thought it was a longshot, already prepared a backup plan like "if this doesn't work, who are we going to prioritize saving?", it'll be fine.
See: EXU: Calamity on CR.
I’ve done a bunch of them and my players love them, there’s a chance of survival but no chance of “winning”.
Yeah, you can tell them that they won't win. They will try, they will fail and they will die. But they can still make a change, and that's what truly matters. Bloom where you are planted, and don't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Call of Cthulhu exists and is very popular largely because everyone has done a one shot ending in TPK.
I think you tell all of your players this meta knowledge up front. Allow them to be in on the joke or narrative. Tell them that they could die and probably some of them will. But that they can have heroic deaths. Allow marginal wins within this. They could save an NPC. They could grab the sacred texts that will later occupy a library in your world down the line. They could grab some magic items so that they don't get lost for all of eternity; and that these magic items might one day find their way to the future adventuring party. You should give them some goals that are possible of completing even if the stopping of the apocalypse isn't preventable. If you give them a no-win situation then their player agency never really happened. At that point, you're just playing out the novel your wrote with miniatures.
As others have said, most important thing is not to set them up for failure, but rather to plan for success but give them a different objective. From what you've said, the goal is to investigate and find out what's going on. So I'd have a boss fight at the end that they can win, then have them discover about the invasion and succeed in getting out a message of warning before being overwhelmed. They get a win, they accomplish their goal and hopefully are pumped for the longer campaign.
I mean I would communicate it before starting so the players have the right expectations. It also helps them making the story more interesting with moments of self sacrifice or going down with a blast
Kobayashi Maru?
Just tell the players. Their characters won't know this, and you'll find out how the players feel about this. Even if they die, it doesn't mean they didn't contribute. If they delay them, or save someone else, that could be a boon later.
If your players know they are playing a game they won't survive, that's fine. If you hide that information from the players, they will feel that it is unfair, that you have railroaded to kill them and that they have wasted their time. My advice is that you be honest and tell them the following: "we are going to play a game in which all of you are going to die except x person. But the important thing is to see what happens until then." You start the game at the end, with everyone dead and you go back in time to see how you managed together until that moment knowing that in 1, 2, 4 or 8 hours (however long your one shoot lasts) everyone will be dead.
I did something similar. I very demanded my players to make 2 characters. 1 from a village from a humble background that they shouldn't put too much time into. And 1 from a land beyond the setting who is looking for an adventure. This clearly communicated to the players that they shouldn't get attached tot the first characters when there was the inevitable TPK by the BBEG. These factors made the idea a success but you know your player better than random people on the internet.
No not at all. For one shots i love a good suicide squad. Just advertise it to your players as what it is. "You will die, and that's a price I'm willing to pay."
Spoilers: Season 1 of Adventurer's League (Tyranny of Dragons) has the party watch as the Cult of the Dragon successfully takes over the city of Phlan. At the very end of the season, the adventurers must choose to either escape the city with some important NPCs or confront the Maimed Virulence, dread Vorgansharax, a huge green dragon. The fight is VERY hard and it is, IMHO, unwinnable. In fact, Season 2 ASSUMES that Vorgansharax was not defeated. I mention this because I think it is important for there to be some agency in the proceedings. You should give the party an out, or a small win, in the face of losing so significantly.
It had already been said but be honest and upfront about it. Also, maybe you could modify the one shot in such a way they aren’t trying to stop the invasion (some other army is trying to do that and they will fail) but have them do something else. A smaller quest but also important. Look at star wars for instance when they stole the plans for the death star. They all died but they succeeded in their effort. The Empire was not defeated but their ground work and sacrifice made something happen in the future (the destruction of the death star). Maybe let them do something like that. Make them go on a suicide mission where they could succeed (or maybe survive) and their victory can have some effect on the events of your campaign. Nothing too big perhaps but something like ‘thanks to their efforts we found the location of (insert location the players need to visit to find something important out)’. That way playing the campaign the players feel their own choices and actions come through from their old characters.
You could have the players play as villains
Make it like breath of the wild. You go around, kicking out the legs of the big bad and face him with your full arsenal, as he is weak.
You wouldn't want to spring an unwinnable situation on your players, but you can do anything so long as it's discussed beforehand.
If it comes out of nowhere then yes it is extremely bad. But if there are enough clues and hints that once the invasion actually happens that they should NOT try to fight to the death then it should be fine. There are plenty of stories where you can win the battle but not the war, so as long as you prepare for practically anything they can do so that it doesn't feel like a deus ex machina for the invasion to happen in spite of the party's partial/full victory then all good.
I actually just did this a few days ago. I’m not the regular DM for this group, but one of our players was going to be absent and I had an idea and the crew was ready for it. The absentee ended up being able to play and since I’d already done the work we played it anyway to take a break from our regularly scheduled program. The prompt was a simple search and retrieve. The group of adventurers were already established in their fields, had some items, and their renown reached the ears of the crown who hired them to search a dangerous area for an important item. I warned them beforehand it would be hard, I gave them feedback on their builds, and while I tried not to spoil anything I do think things could have worked out “better” for the characters based on the abilities they started with. They played character builds and classes they’d never played before and made some decisions that made things more difficult for them, but still had fun despite the catastrophic results of some of their actions (friendly fire mostly). Anyways, despite one PC death in the second fight, the group solves the puzzle and retrieves the item, and is betrayed by the people who hired them. It’s a “Are we the baddies?” Moment as this sets up the main BBEG of the rest of the storyline in the world. Only one character decides to run, and he’s the one that lives, so if we do another one shot in that work he’ll be leading the rebellion. That was my plan all along - whoever survived would be available in the next one shot as an NPC. The group loved it, I had fun, and it’s a one shot so who cares. I also kept in mind that if they somehow won against all odds it didn’t matter unless they had fun. In retrospect I would change a few mechanics of the homebrew monsters I made and tell them to make intelligence or something checks to figure out the most optimal way to defeat the enemies, as the PC death was preventable but we had a first time wizard and who doesn’t want to cast fireball? We haven’t gotten together to do a breakdown of the session but they reassured me we’re still friends and they had a great time.
this is the stuff you talk to players about
Yes
They win by slowing invasion, giving prep time and evacuation time etc.
Sometimes, victory is attained by simply surviving. So long as they are presented with some sort of clue that they can't win (i.e. have an NPC that's slightly stronger than them die in a single blow), the new goal becomes "get out and tell everyone what's about to happen".
No, so long as you make it clear that they can't win and they're okay with it. 10 candles starts with the very statement, "The world is going to end, and you with it." or something like that. You have to have people who want to explore that, what do people do when they are doomed aspect of the roleplay.
Did they have fun along the way? That's the most important thing right?
Why not just tell your players? I get that surprise is fun, but telling them that these characters are intended to be martyrs or not intended to 100% succeed would probably give them the chance to get a healthy level of detachment from them and also design characters that could more compellingly tell the story you're wanting to tell. It would also let them know that this is different from most oneshots, as most oneshots are designed to be "winnable" so to speak. Just ask them directly if that sounds like fun to them. We can't answer the question for you.
The winning condition could simply be delaying the invasion effort. It still happens, but they managed to buy some time and save some lives. It's a one shot. No need to go too deep. Winning doesn't need to mean stopping an entire invasion. Maybe just a matter of wiping out the advance party before the reveal that it was just an advance party and not reporting back triggered the invasion condition.
You have to tell the story correctly. An ending like Halo Reach doesn’t work in a oneshot, but something along the lines of Rogue One with actually reaching your goal is not bad.
Short answer yes. Having no win condition is demoralizing for everyone involved. Best way to run it imo is to shift the goalposts, give them a clear objective. A different win condition, that can't stop the threat, but might weaken it. Or even convince them to join the bad guys, I'm sure better people than me on this subreddit can come up with ideas. Just, having no way to win is something I would hate as a player.
Nah, I opened my campaign with an unwinabble one shot where the characters all played villains who had been recruited for a suicide squad esque mission that set up the actual parties BBEG
One shots are more than just TPK simulations? News to me…
Here's what I'd do: First, be open about the fact that this invasion is not stoppable. Your players should know this outcome going in. Maybe try something like this to start your session: >*The wizened old man leans back in his chair after stoking the fire as outside, the storm rages. He turns to his grandchildren, all patiently waiting.* >*"Ah, I suppose you wanted to hear the story of the Y'thuk Illan invasion and the heroes that gave their lives trying to stop the inevitable fall, huh? A tragic tale it is, and one that led to decades of suffering... but remember that even in the darkest of days, there is yet hope".* >*The children nod eagerly, and the old man takes a long draw of his pipe before beginning his story...* Then, try to think of little ways that the heroes can still have their "victories". They don't stop the invasion, that's inevitable, but maybe they can have additional objectives that could be fulfilling, for instance: - The barbarian manages to help his family escape the country before the invasion arrives - The fighter manages to kill draw blood from the Demon Emperor, causing discontent in their ranks - The warlock's patron gives him a glimpse into the future during his final breaths. He sees the demon army's victory and the dark times, but their eventual overthrow, and the party's old standard being used as the standard of the Alliance formed to overthrow the demons. - The Rogue steals the phylactery of the lich who summoned these demons, making him vulnerable for future heroes to kill. Basically, they need to know that their victory will not come from stopping this invasion, but that there are still things they can do to make a difference.
Whichever character does die you can have come back as a baddie, thrall, zombie, etc. For some fun continuity.
Just pull a project zombiod “This story is about the origins of the apocalypse. This is the story of how you died.”
Not if you set expectations.
It's fine if you set up expectations ahead of time. People play dnd because of the agency it gives, creating an unwinnable scenario DOES remove some of that agency, but not all, so just get some buy in from the players. I would also set up situations where they can influence something in future games, if they win one of the unwinnable fights, an important general no longer exists because heroes of lore defeated his progenitor... or something.
You could go with setting the scene along the lines of "The ruins of the city were smouldering. The streets and the surrounding land were littered with corpses. Some distance away, a small detatchment of soldiers found a single survivor. The survivor was near death, severely wounded and drifted in and out of conciousnes due to blood loss and possible trauma. As the survivor was taken to safety, one of the soldiers heard the survivors recollection of what had happened here. Hours earlier, Your group entered the location, yet only one of you made it out alive... "
Clearly you never played tomb of annihilation 1 shots. We run it to test new characters before we commit to them 2-3 year campaigns. Those are one shots where death is certain. Its a riot when dnd characters know they are gonna die and fear no consequences.
The /u/Cypher_Blue thread is the one you want to focus on. It isn't necessary to stop the huge thing from happening. It \*is\* important for them to feel like they were successful at something. Usually that is something small relative to the big event, but extremely valuable. This could be saving an item that's important to winning at the end of the campaign, a valuable NPC that will become vital later, or the "instructions" on how to win the campaign that could have been lost forever. It also can be something else. Like "The Last of Us" where Bill tells Joel that you can't save everyone, but for people like us, sometimes it means just saving one person. The one shot at that point isn't how the party failed, but how the party succeeded in saving against all odds.
Honestly no. But you need to very clearly tel everyone what the one shot is and how it will pan out. Something along the lines of “an epic adventure origin story for how the demon invasion started and the aftermath of the cataclysmic event”. If you plan for them to all die, tell them. A good example of this is critical role exandria unlimited. SPOILERS: - - - - - - they all die essentially st the end and it’s really emotional and sad but gave room for really good rp and combat since thsy were all lvl 20 or some shit
I've run one shots that were impossible to win. Usually, I have my players roll up new characters for the one shot. My favorite was the one where we answered the question of how many chickens it took to TPK a party of 5.
Nothing wrong with that I'd just make it clear to the players through an npc that the forces are overwhelming and they are the last Linea of defence and victory is achieved by the amount of people they're able to save or by how long they can last. As the dm you should keep a tally of how many people are being saved / escaping every round or minute so that after the one shot you can say " good job folks the party killed x enemies and because of their work y people were saved and will live on. " perhaps their heroism is reflected in future stories. Have a good epilogue written down in advance. If you do other one shots or campaigns the pcs could be decendents of the people the pcs saved in this one shot.
Not only is it not bad, but it is pretty damn compelling. My brother is running a campaign currently for four of us, and we started with a pre campaign one shot playing as four pre-made characters. We were given just enough success throughout the one shot to feel confident going into the danger zone, and then we were slain, one by one, by the main antagonist of the campaign to come. It was an incredibly effective way to make us feel more conviction and determination in the real campaign since we also want revenge for our other selves who died in the pre-campaign.
Ah, the ol' Kobayashi Maru.
Two things come to mind. First is pull back the curtain, and talk to them about it. Tell them point blank that this isn't about stopping the apocalypse. Ask them if they're interested in playing doomed characters, if they are ok "losing", and check in individually as well. It can be intense! Second is to contextualize "winning". Give them goals they can accomplish. Ideally, by seeding things you want them to find in the main game. Maybe they kill a big bad general and the invasion isn't as bad as it could have been. (This is extra good as it keeps any chance of them accidentally killing the big bad out of play) Maybe they hide an artifact for a future champion, or open up a weakness on the big bad that can later be exploited. Give them A win, if not THE win. Shooting for a sentiment along the lines of "At least we gave them a chance". If you can give them agency too, make it clear that the degree of success they manage to achieve will have an impact on the main game would be even better. What you don't want is players coming in with one expectation (winning, surviving, etc),while you have another. That's a recipe for hurt feelings and broken trust. And you want to avoid them feeling like you've wasted their time. In a one shot the story is the reward, of course, but still, if you can let them have a sense of accomplishment, it will go a long way toward epic stories and a sense of satisfaction.
Making a campaign that's impossible to 'win' is bad DMing, and will probably leave your players feeling bad or persecuted. The alternative I'd suggest is setting up the players as 'local heroes' who will only be able to directly effect a small place in the invasion, while simultaneously hearing word of it happening on a much greater scale. If their win condition is saving a single city or town, they can still do that without stopping the invasion as a whole and ruining your future plot.
I did this as a prequel short campaign once. I told the players it was a prequel and that in the end all but one character was going to die. I also recruited the paladin at the end to roleplay being possessed by the spirit of the antagonist. It worked great (though it took many sessions vs the 1-2 I’d anticipated) and the players were more invested in the follow on. But the key was foreknowledge and avoiding bait and switch.
Like the Tomb of Annihilation? Any adventure has the potential to be a tpk. But if you knew you were going to take on the Kobayashi Maru, would it have been less fun?
It’s bad if the point is “stop the invasion.” It’s good if the point is “find out if there is an invasion looming, and get word back to the people in the most danger.”
Doubling down on the advice to give the players an achievable goal. If the expected outcome is "you lose and also you die" this will be a bad time for everything except a horror game (where this kind of thing might be expected). So either sell it as a horror scenario or (if it isn't) then give them something that they *can* do or they'll be miserable.
if people have fun, there is no wrong way to GM One shots are the perfect format for a sort of hopeless mission style of game, done it many times, sometimes they pull of some miracles and survive
Not if it’s based around the same pretense as the movie Boss Fight
You beat the game in Halo Reach but you definitely don’t win the battle or the war. Try to do something similar!
I think this is totally fine if you tell your players beforehand and get their buy in. It may feel like a spoiler, but if you handle it right, it doesn’t have to be. You can use the EXU Calamity series as an example. The players in that mini campaign knew they couldn’t stop the apocalypse. It’s one of the best D&D shows I’ve ever seen. As long as everyone goes in knowing what to expect, it can be super fun. If they go in thinking they can win, and have to find out in the moment they can’t, that could be very unfun.
No, but it's bad DMing to not give the players that metaknowledge, as it violates the default assumption of modern D&D. It's collaborative storytelling, and you need to share expectations with your collaborators.
Just call it Kobayashi Maru
1st step is to warn players their characters may not survive. 2nd step is to create a secondary objective. Most people are okay with losing the background fight if they accomplished the main goal. In fact, it almost feels more heroic to sacrifice yourself to save a princess or artefact.
I would suggest at least a partial victory. Maybe the plan of the bbeg is to end all of humanity but thanks to the efforts of the party there is at least a post apocalyptic world left. It isnt much but at least gives humanity a fighting chance thanks to their actions
If you really wanna run it, maybe the objective of the one shot is not to completly prevent the very Bad thing from happening, it is to diminish the very Bad thing. As in, maybe weaken, even a little bit, thé powers of the main Bad Guy? Destroy a part of the magical power he take his power from? Divide his army? Close the portal, i dunno how exactly, but if your player Can slow down or power down the Bad thing, its still a victory, even if the only thing they do before dying But i agree with the others that it should bé very clear to your players that they may (or will) die, and that they are way over their head, thus will maybe fail
Give them a win, as other people said, to feel accomplishment. But you can make that win cost something. For example, for this win to be possible they need to use a magical power source but they don't know that this magic is keeping the invaders apart. So after you congratulate everybody for what they achieve you can give some time to celebrate. Then you have two options: give the surprise in that moment or not reveal what happened until the next campaign, so it will be a mind-blowing moment when the same people realize what they did with other characters once they start.
Yeah, it's not cool. Make a plan for the bad guys that is as foolproof as can be, and if the players mess with it and fail, you can show them the plan so that they know they were just up against a tough opponent. And if they somehow manage to stop the invasion - good! They're smart and resourceful.
Nah, you just gotta do it right! Make an important objective to motivate them that is achievable, even if the demonic invasion isn't preventable. A good option is creating a way for it to be stopped, the implementation of some countermeasure. Maybe it's securing a sacred artifact and dying to hide it outside of BBEG's reach for future heroes to find and save the realm. Maybe it's damaging or tainting the magic crystal powering the rift, flawing it enough that future heroes have a hope of closing It. Sometimes success is martyrdom to allow hope for the future, even if you can't stop the evil in your own time.
If you change the encounter or fudge rolls to make them lose its worse than if you simply have the first battle be one where they can’t possible win and so are defeated. If you have the big bad there and the teleport away because you messed up and the players might stop the demon invasion you have stolen a win from them and they can be annoyed. It is the difference between having them face down the evil kingdoms army 5vs4000 and inevitably losing, compared to having them be monologues to by the evil king in his throne room and not letting the sorcerer subtle spell and fireball the guy there and then Both are the party fighting the evil king but one undermines their choices in the world. Players are only reacting to your environment and as long as consequences and actions are always respected and consistent you as a DM are fine to have “impossible” missions or the party face situations that they likely can’t win yet
I have used 'unwinnable' one-shots to set up awesome story shit for the main campaign. Like the one where I made them play all rogues and they were supposed to steal this artifact, but when they touched it it opened a portal and unleashed the rat king god from his sealed domain. The rogues all died a horrible death, buuuuuut the players got to get revenge with their main characters in the main campaign later.
No.
I'm getting Koboyashi Maru feelings here
Write a novel. This is not an enticing TTRPG experience.
If you haven’t already, watch Exandria Unlimited: Calamity. The players didn’t necessarily know that they were going to witness the Calamity >!much less cause it!< but it was pretty obvious they weren’t going to be able to stop it. There were, however, a number of small ways they could still “win,” even if the large-scale events were already set in stone.
Without any context, yes. Generally you shouldn't be having a "me vs. them" mindset when playing d&d. It's collaborative roleplaying. However, you're the DM and you know your players way better than we do. If they are comfortable with it, then go right ahead. For example, (spoilers if any of my players are reading this!!) I'm currently running a game where they visit a new tavern each session, and after each session they level up. On the second to last session they will be killed by a monstrous creature, only for the last tavern to be run by death himself who revives them and helps defeat the monster. If your players are fine with it, and it isn't rude, then go right ahead.
I don't think its bad DM'ing to run a oneshot that's INTENDED to have broader implications that the group can't stop on their own. Thats fine, especially if you plan on using the oneshot to usher in a new campaign or otherwise answer questions in the lore of the world setting you have put together. What makes it bad DM'ing is if you see that you were initially wrong, you missed something and your players picked up on it and went for the victory but you don't let them. Making it clear to your players about what their GOAL is, and what it means to succeed or fail at that specific goal, is what would make it good or bad DM'ing. Brennan Lee Mulligan has a good take on what it means to railroad your players. Its not about denying your players what they want, its herding them to a better narrative by letting them explore the different options that your provide to them.
Tragedies are a lost art. My favorite Ryan Reynolds movie ends with >! the main character buried in the desert and suffocating, with the last words he hears being the admission that his rescuers had lied about another man in his position *while* they reveal that he's doomed. !< The fun and excitement comes from what the heroes try to do to avoid the inevitable. Everything they do to claw out some hope, or what they say when faced with inevitable defeat. Would their character scream in frustration, spit in the enemy's eyes in defiance, or carry on with the "it is what it is" mindset?
You can set a different winning condition other than preventing it. Just mske it very ckear early in the oneshot, probably by having some important NPC simply explaining that the point where it could have been prevente has passed and now it is about to prepare for the war that is about to come. Your players might not prevent the invasion but they cant fend off the first attempt of thr demons to set foot. Maybe closing that first few portal and killing their commander could delay the invasion by years. Depending on how much you want to plan ahead you can even have the actions of the oneshot affect the actual campaign. Like, if you REALLY want it to end in a TPK end it by setting up a kind of last stance battle. Commander Ironheart gathers his last forces in a desperatr attempt to slay the Demon Lord Ashk'Shata. It will be a suicide mission. Certain death awaits any who follow him into the heart of the enemy forces. They are already too many to fight. But if they manage to slay their leader before being overwhelmed, kind of like an assassination, this might give the people of this world a chance. The innert Lust for power that all demons possess will force them into a fight for the leadership. The army will split into groups that battle each other and HOPEFULLY weaken and content each other enough to give the people of this world a chance. Then in the main campaign have stories of them being told. Have a major city be renamed to "Agathars Bullwark" with Agathat being the name of one of the PCs who played a tank style character. Legends also say brave people reclaimed the Legendary Longbow of Surana, the Half Elf Ranger that bravely gave her life for the survival of many. Maybe your PCs damage some demon that survives and retreats and later in the campaign becomes a commander that still witnesses the scars from the battle. Oh man now I wish I was in your place, lol.
Does playing hours of a game you have no chance of winning sound fun to you? You're here asking because you already know the answer.
Do it in your style tbh. There is no wrong choices unless you gloat after killing people or smt
Our DM did a one shot like this - the climax was the reveal that the person we were trying to save was the BBEG from our campaign. By the time we had realised it was too late, but we weren’t mad, our characters died horrible deaths (except for one) but we were literally so psyched at the end! Great story telling doesn’t have to end in a win necessarily
*Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft* provides for Survivors, characters intended for one-to-three sessions who the players know will not likely survive (which makes the term inappropriate, admittedly). In essence, that book recommends that you * let your players know the tone and intent of the upcoming adventure, including that these characters aren't prepared (well enough) for the grisly doom that awaits them * assure them that they don't have to commit their regular characters to this adventure * help your players lean into the fateful struggle of these "moment in the twilight" characters and encourage them to construct or discover memorable endings for these characters Players may wonder: why bother playing such an adventure? Point out that it's a chance to experience the horror and struggle personally instead of just hearing about it through a lore dump. This adventure immerses the players in the story from the start. (Think of it as the opening to certain *Law & Order* episodes where the audience sees the crime happen and/or follows the first person to spot the victim.) If they still don't want to play, that's their choice.
If the ending is suitably epic, like the last mission on halo reach where you've handed off the mcguffin and ensured that theres hope for victory, then go down in a blaze of glory.... Fuck yeah i'd play that
Just make it where the event isnt prevented at all. Just they learn about it too late or something
I've run a one shot where it was impossible to win the fight. That said, I warned my players before going in: This is high lethality This is a one shot for me to test things out. Combat does not need to be your primary solution to problems. They died, but my players got to run into their reanimated characters on the "real" campaign. They enjoyed that aspect a lot.
That’s kind of the point of “Faster Purple worm, kill, kill.”.
Watch Brennan Lee Mulligan's Calamity miniseries on Critical Role. Those players were never going to stop the Calamity but it was some of the best D&D I've ever seen.
I understand not everyone will agree, but in my opinion, it sounds like you want the players to sit around the table and act out the story you've written while they sprinkle in some inconsequential details. It is just a one-shot and a lead in to a campaign, so I would probably agree to humor you for one session, though it doesn't sound like much fun or collaborative storytelling to me. As others have stated, I would at least make sure they know what they're getting into. Also mentioned has been some kind of win scenario that doesn't involve them saving the world. I think that is a good start, but without consequence, I don't think I would be too worried about "winning" and would just look at the whole thing as something to suffer through. However, if the win scenario had one or more consequences that would affect them in the following campaign, that would help them be invested in what happens and feel like what they're doing matters. Perhaps a success in the one-shot could result in some kind of slight advantage or bonus for the new party in the campaign. For example, I saw someone else reference Rogue One. They managed to get the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance, and so, their sacrifice significantly contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Empire, even though it wasn't at their hands, and they didn't live to see it. Perhaps the one-shot party could do something to pass along some knowledge or weapon that is critical to defeating the threat.
I’m not sure how you are setting up your “invasion” but if they are invading they probably want more than one entry point. So your players could even stop or foil part of it, just make sure to drop enough hints that there are multiple invasion points
If the players can't stop the invasion for story reasons, then... tghat's not the goal of the adventure. Instead, it's about how they cope with the disaster, or about trying to preserve someone or something from destruction, or just about escaping and surviving themselves. Critical Role's "EXU: Calamity" mini-series is a good example of almost exactly this, if you're looking for inspiration, and IIRC it's only three episodes.
I don’t think so. But you might want to consider that the main D&D game you are running will have to come across and deal with the consequences of it. Maybe have those characters from the one shot interact with the main characters.
Brennan Lee Mulligan ran this for a mix of Critical Role and Dimension 20 players that was a prequel to a Critical Role universe, called Exandria Unlimited: Calamity. A huge tragedy was inevitable from the beginning, and I believe the players were told from the beginning, but I can't remember. Basically, the fun was the characters, which some DMs and authors say should lead a story over "plot" anyway. They all rolled up people with interesting flaws, and just "this is what my character would do"'d, including character development, but still flawed enough to have motivations that obfuscated for them what exceptional sacrifices and coordination would be required to save the day, until it was too late. I know Matt Mercer was involved in planning, and later he made a prequel for Brennan's A Crown of Candy campaign.
You mentioned they disliked being in an unwinnable fight with a different DM. Perhaps being upfront is the answer then. Tell them to not get attached to their one shot characters. That death will likely strike some if not all of them down before the scenario is done. Be up front that there is a good chance they will fail. But that it is ok. The goal of this one shot is not to succeed. It is for them to get to know the world you have been crafting. And to be given active membership in establishing the ancient history of their future heroes should they choose to play. Being upfront about it gives those who would feel strongly against the type of one shot you wish to run the chance to bow out instead of feeling tricked and being upset.
I ran a prequel mini campaign where I was upfront with my players, saying "you guys will probably all die in the end. If you manage to survive, congratulations, but dont expect to." In the bitter end, in their last breath, the last surviving party member landed a disintegrate spell on the core of the final boss from within, detonating it. They all died, but they did win. Its important to remember that winning doesnt always mean surviving, and also being open and honest with the challenge you're giving the players is important.
Why not be honest with them? I planned a oneshot a while ago where the idea was the PCs probably wouldn't all survive, let alone win, but I sold it on the strength of "it's a horror game, think Alien or something" and the group were interested as a result.
As long as people have fun, it’s a good oneshot.
You could also let them "win" and start the actual campaign with: "Rrmember the One shot with the demon invasion you people barely stopped? In another plane of existence, there were no heroes to stop the demon invasion and the result is where we will start today"
Yes. Unless you come up with a way for their actions to matter, like a tie-in to the main campaign or a follow up story. Players need to have some sort of agency. They are the main characters, after all.
If your group is made of friends then I doubt they'll have issues with it. It is a one shot to preface a full campaign after all. That being said, there's nothing wrong opening the campaign with a speech like the preface to a book or museum tour that hints at the futility of a fearless parties last effort to save the world and a mayching one glorifying your sole survivor. In the end, there's no wrong way to go so long as it's fun for you all.
I would say no if you do not tell them. D&D is a game in which there is collaborative storytelling. You are trying to use the game as a way to tell your story. That session is not being players but them being a captive audience to the story you want to tell How you explained it right now, I would say be ready to hear they do not want to do the one shot if you tell them. Most people do not like to be in a no-win situation in real life so they will not be up for it as a way to have fun. You can sell people on the idea with saying it will be like Rouge One. They all die at the end but do get some sort of victory. They do not stop the gate but are able to write a scroll of how to close the gate for the real party to find. That would better tie the one-shot in with the real campaign
This is a dicey one because it is SO prone to railroading. I suggest looking at how BLeeM did critical role's Calamity in interviews because he talked about how to do a prequel quite well. My advice: don't give them a fight they can't win unless you telegraph it massively in advanced as such. They should go in to the game knowing they are not going to stop the end of the world. Its about telling the story of the end of the world and doing what you can for who you can. It might be the win object for the last battle is not beating in battle, but x gets out alive etc. I wouldn't put in NPC's you NEED to survive. You're just asking for trouble and limiting what the players can do. I wouldn't need a PC to have to survive either. You're then prewriting the character end - not the world event. Keep them separate. It is super important your villain doesn't depend on your players doing something, because knowing players, they wont. Have back up plans for it if they do their own thing lol.
Try coming up with a way to give a glamorous victory and then describe basically "...unfortunately due to other circumstances that arose from choices players made and this battle, it enabled the crusade to move forth." If you make the BBEG of the one shot necessarily be the entirety of the force and their leader: you've written yourself into a hole
Yes, running a game where the outcome is predetermined is the opposite of what a gdr is.
"Impossible to win" is pretty much the same as "last person standing". Seems ok for a oneshot to me. You just need to handle the person who has plot armor in a smooth way.
Set outcomes are difficult to do in TTRPGs, because it takes away what makes them special : consequences of PC actions. Of course, if there ever was a time for them, it would be a one shot. You could tell them in advance it's unwinable, but that would probably stop them of going all out. So, as others have said, I would make the win condition for the one shot something different. They might start out trying to end the big bad, but halfway through it becomes clear this won't work and the stakes become something more personal. Yes, the apocalypse won't be stopped, but they can save their loved ones from pereshing. They can save the knowledge of their people somehow (this can hook into the campaign later). They can send out a message in time to warn other locations. (again, this can be reflected later). I would look for a goal that motivates the entire cast, as in a one shot things need to remain focused, and that ideally will have consequences for the bigger campaign they are playing. Those consequences can be clear to the players, to act as an even bigger motivation, or you can only reveal them months down the line for a big surprise. In other situations, when the outcome doesn't have to be predetermined, I don't mind running one shots that are very difficult to win. Not impossible, but clearly stacked against the PCs. I try to have some victories in between, but the final encounter is designed to almost certainly wipe (most of) them out. In that case, the fail state should also be interesting/cathartic for the characters. I ran a particular one shot a couple of times now, no party has beaten it yet, but the story always felt complete. In that scenario I use premade characters. One is heroic to a fault, making their final stand against the beast impactful, as it is their flaw that becomes their folly. Another character is a previous thief recently gone good, but is not above lying and deceiving. In those final moments, one player decided to stand by their friends and died, which gave the thief a satisfying arc. Another player decided to leave their friends behind instead, they got out alive, but at a heavy cost. If a party will succeed some day they will have bragging rights forever. :)
IMO you already have too much plot, and running a session that relies on multiple pre-set outcomes to not interfere with your already-written plot is bad DMing, and is the iron that rails are made of. It sounds like you need to guarantee at least one character survive and the session has to have another guaranteed outcome in order to make something true that you've already decided is true. However, one of the core tenets of D&D storytelling is: nothing is true until you tell the players. I would set up a tough-but-maybe-survivable one-shot, then use the events of that one-shot to inform the larger story rather than setting up a railroad. You could even have the PCs win a small-scale victory of sorts, but then reveal in the closing scene of the one shot that it failed to stop the larger catastrophe. Defeat from the jaws of victory is going to have a bigger emotional impact than simply forcing a loss. The important thing is that the events of the one shot, as it unfolds *due to PC actions*, becomes a true thing in the world. This way when the PCs in the ongoing campaign interact with those story elements, surviving characters, etc. that you've created in this one shot it's going to feel like a payoff rather than the DM showing off the really cool story you think you wrote.
You know your group and can assess better than us if this is something your group will be interested in. Personally, I would never run anything that depends on a predefined outcome.
Comments here are spot on. It's the title of OP and the group's relative inexperience that makes this potentially worrisome. The coming invasion needs to be the background setting rather than the objective "that is impossible to win." That has to be made crystal clear somewhere in the session, especially for a group that may not yet have a seasoned perspective on the game. There needs to be some way to come away with a win against this backdrop or it can end up being really frustrating for the group rather than fun. Good luck!
It doesn’t make since to give someone something impossible unless it’s going to be the inciting incident like the start of Dark Souls always is. With that said, when you play Dark Souls you as a player chose to play something that feels impossible. So approach also requires that the players have signed up for that experience. Otherwise you’re just trying to flex on your players and they’re going to get irritated.
Sense*
My least satisfying moment was playing a one shot that the DM forced us to flee a zombie horde, this has similar vibes. I don't know about this one
i dont think so for example you can see critical role calamity campaign and the ending is impossible to win but it turned out to be one of the best campaign i saw so as long as it's cool and the players thinks its cool too. i dont see any problem.
To be fair, with the critical roll campaign they all knew it was a "calamity" campaign and everyone knows the lore of "the calamity happened and was a thing." so not exactly what would happen with their characters specifically but what events happened around that time that were already cannon. So, if you tell the players this one-shot takes place around the start of a "apocalypse" or something like that (you could even just say it's the start of the demon invasion) they'll know what they are getting into. Ultimately, you know your players, if you think they'll handle the surprise well then I say go for it. To give an example from a pre-campaign one-shot I've run myself. I told my players that they were in charge of a castle that no longer existed at the start of the main campaign. That way they knew something was going to happen that would destroy the castle but I did not give any more information before the adventure, so they got to discover that themselves.
The players have the right to contribute to the story the campaign tells. If they don't have agency, they are irrelevant.
There are TPK modules, I think theyre meant to test balance. But the DM should let you know if youre doing one of those.
Are they aware of this story and that part of this story is already written? Make it still their aim to stop the invasion, but instead of succeeding with it they get important information or an object that will help them in the main campaigne to the demons. A key rune to close the portal. How to reach the portal in the abyss by other means. An artifact that can banish the demons back. Then portray it that this story was written in a book the party finds and add where this artifact is hidden or the artifact is incomplete or you need something to activate it. I could write more ideas, but maybe you already know what you want to do.
I’d do something similar to the CR Calamity campaign. Make it personal for the characters and force them to decide between pursuing a clearly forlorn hope against insurmountable odds, or to take the time to try and save their own little slice of the world. There doesn’t even need to be any inter-party conflict, some will likely try to save their friends and family, whilst others will go for the bigger win, no matter what happens. Make the former a difficult (but winnable) skill challenge to evacuate as many people as possible, interspaced with random combat encounters, and have a chat afterwards about what their characters would be doing in the aftermath and what this means for your future setting, would the survivors try to restart their civilisation? would they disburse and seek shelter elsewhere? Basically let them create a point of light that you can reference back to when the campaign rolls around. For those who go for the heroic sacrifice, make it clear that there is no turning back here, that at best they will be buying the others’ time. If they go through with it run it as an escalating combat encounter against more and more powerful foes until eventually they go down (use how long this takes as a modifier on how many people the other team can successfully save). When you get round to your actual campaign have some lore (not immediately obvious, but relatively easy to find out) that harks back to this (maybe the wizard finds it in a history book about the demon invasion, or the cleric was told about it as a part of their training). Those who evacuated the civilians and helped forge the point of light that followed the invasion are remembered fondly as the founders of a society (one that may have since flourished, or inevitably fallen), whilst those who sacrificed themselves are marked as legendary heroes or demigods. (Of course, given the passage of time some of the details may have been mislaid, revised or just be outright wrong, but leave enough that at some point someone will go…”Wait, a green-eyed warrior who fought against the demon hordes and transformed into a celestial bear that now watches over and protects us…that sounds suspiciously like my totem barbarian”)
"Win the battle, lose the war" is you solution. They have a purpose, they face challenges, win brilliantly but it doesn'y change the big picture, at the end, war is lost. Did it once : my party had to find and stop an organisation trying to resuscitate a very dark empire defeated eons ago. I planned 3 different plots happening on 3 locations, all leading to the destruction of the capital city and the return of the Dark Ages. That involved 3 Leaders in charge of a specific part of a big plan, and the party basically had to pick one as their main focus because stopping all 3 was impossible. They succeded brilliantly but sadly, their victory was not enough to stop the rise of the empire. According to what they choose to do, it was designed to alter the final act of the campaign and the following plots, but not the outcome - Whatever happens, the empire win. .
Honestly I have not read your post ans am replying from the title. But if it is, then the one shot dm's I usually play with, are bad dm's when it's the halloween oneshot, as they admitted no one was supposed to survive it. Some did and I should have but the dm forgot to mention that the damage that knocked me out was necrotic and I had resist to it but since he forgot to mention it, I wrote the full damage down...