I just realized that I'm about to be in three campaigns that basically have a timeline to them.  Rome and the Legion of Superheros I'm already doing; and now very soon the Three Kingdoms chinese campaign.

Now here's the thing, any of my players could end up trying to read up on "what comes next" by looking it up, in any of these campaigns (two through history books, the third through comic books).

In fact, in the Legion campaign we have one player who is a big legion fan, and another who has read some legion stuff, so they both have some idea what is coming down the tubes.
And Jong seems to be relatively informed about Roman history; its unclear to me whether this is all stuff he knew before or whether he's been looking shit up as we go along. I wouldn't doubt the latter.

Frankly, I've decided not to worry about it, though. Luckily, I trust my players enough to know that none of them are going to intentionally use their knowledge to their advantage. They'll stick to playing in character, and in any case knowing the big picture doesn't really tell you everything about how to get there, and that's where all the interesting bits are.

But has anyone else ever run a campaign where the players could find out the setting's "future"? How have you handled it, what consequences did it have?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd Jong seems to be relatively informed about Roman history; its unclear to me whether this is all stuff he knew before or whether he's been looking shit up as we go along. I wouldn't doubt the latter.

Both. It's unavoidable.

QuoteFrankly, I've decided not to worry about it, though. Luckily, I trust my players enough to know that none of them are going to intentionally use their knowledge to their advantage. They'll stick to playing in character, and in any case knowing the big picture doesn't really tell you everything about how to get there, and that's where all the interesting bits are.

This, IMHO, is the key. Knowing what comes next shouldn't stop your character from taking the wrong decision, if he believes it's the right thing to do. That's why Quintus ended up in that Macedonian mess.

In my upcoming IHW campaign the action takes place during Napoleon's adventure in Egypt. The final battle is well documented and nearly all my players have read about it. So, that part of the thrill is slightly diminished. Or is it ?

Here's the thing, I've discovered when players know the future - what's out there - the aspect of what's in here - within the party - becomes the most thrilling element of play. The relationships between the pcs, the way how they deal with the issues thrown at them and the reasons why they as characters are pursuing a particular course of action that as players they know the outcome of.

Now some of this stuff happens in a normal game, but IMHO when players know the future of the campaign, characterization becomes the most vital aspect of the game. It really has to be about the characters and sometimes even the larger goals of the campaign although extremely important takes a back seat to their motivations.

Getting caught up in the events of history which pcs can't change is something which is at odds with how rpgs are usually played, but, if done right, and with players realizing that they at the end of the day are there to play a role in the history and not necessarily change , a campaign where players know the future can be pretty intense .

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditBut has anyone else ever run a campaign where the players could find out the setting's "future"? How have you handled it, what consequences did it have?

That is like asking if anyone has ever run a published adventure module.  For some of the more popular ones even before the advent of the Internet it was sometimes hard to not have an idea of what is coming up.  The advent of the Internet coupled with varying levels of knowledge in the use of spoiler tags has made it all the more difficult.

For the most I don't sweat it. Although I have been known to throw the occational wrinkle in interpreting the source material when I find PCs having uncanny "luck" in their choices. For example changing an NPC's name and then adding an NPC that wasn't mentioned in the original (*cough*red herring*cough*) adopt the original's name. That is if the element of mystery is key to the situation.

EDIT: Besides, as David R points out, the center of the gaming can be about something other than what is effectively the backstory.  Because if it isn't backstory and it's all predetermined, then the players are just riding back in the coach car.  Of course that doesn't preclude the players attempting to be Griff Tannen to the PC's Biff Tannen. But if they really try to milk that too much to their advantage then why are you playing with these people?

I have actually played in the same CoC scenario 3 times, and enjoyed it every time. Knowing the future and even knowing the adventure didnt affect my enjoyment.

Just because you know the future doesn't mean that you can do anything about it.

It would be fascinating to play an Oracle in a classical Greek or Roman campaign!

In my Roman Immortal campaign, Cassandra is currently the Sybil of Tiburae; the PCs are all scared shitless of anyone going to see her, and despise all true oracles with a passion.  Its been pretty much established that anything that a real oracle (especially Cassandra) predicts WILL come true one way or another.

RPGPundit

I have never had this problem with a historical game, but I've never run one either...which still sucks.

But I have run the same adventure for All Flesh Must Be Eaten* about half a dozen times (I've lost count).  One of my friends has played in it every time.  It's never been a problem, the game has always rocked.  

It's all about trust.  Hell, good gaming is all about trust.

*Coffee Break of the Living Dead

Quote from: JongWKBoth. It's unavoidable.

Sneaky son of a greek.

Quote from: joewolzIt's all about trust.  Hell, good gaming is all about trust.

What he said. I've had the same experiences.

I recently played in a campaign where the first session began at a conflict about two-thirds of the way in.  After that initial (ridiculously sweet) battle, we all went back to square one and began working our way to that point.  

Some players were actively attempting to get there, some were attempting to derail the choo-choo at every turn, but pretty much everyone bought into the idea that the "future" would happen at some point in the campaign.  

It does, always, come down to the players and the GM; in this case, he gave us all the freedom in the world, and we played our characters hard and (for the most part) without any knowledge of what was coming down the pike.  Somehow, through some sort of collectively, pushing and pulling, all the pieces fell into place.

When we finally arrived at the "future" point, the characters were moderately different from the original ones, but not significantly so, and it was incredibly satisfying to reach that point.  This took place at a kind of dawn-til-dusk four day gaming retreat (the focus inherent there is one of the reasons I think it really worked).

Quote from: joewolzIt's all about trust.  Hell, good gaming is all about trust.

That is so true it hurts.

-clash

Quote from: joewolzIt's all about trust.  Hell, good gaming is all about trust.

True, but please tell me that you don't have your players fall so that you can catch them.

Quote from: NicephorusTrue, but please tell me that you don't have your players fall so that you can catch them.

Considering the polarized weight distribution of typical role-players, this can only result in disaster...

It is really part of the players role in the game to think and take actions as though he was the character and part GMs role to react to their actions.

In the end if both are doing just that, then their characters shouldn't know what is going to happen (atleast in the begining). Of course their actions could change history.