The ability to change things

[Xanfyrst]

It's a question that has been on my mind for years. I'm aware that it has happened before, but with characters, places and things of minor importance to our setting, such as Fzoul already being the leader a decade before he usurps Manshoon. But I wonder how much further a player or a group of players could take this.


Example: If a character planned to kill the dukes and those plans were well-thought out and within the realm of plausibility... would the DM team allow a character to have a chance to succeed?

How much would the playerbase be able to change the world? Take fx the above example. Would it be possible to kill off the dukes? To raze Darkhold to the ground? Take over the FAI by force?

Yes, these are very extreme cases... but the question still remains: would it be possible if a player or a group of players would have the perfect plan for it and execute it to perfection? Or would the DM team prevent them from succeeding to keep status quo in terms of Server-setting/lore? How far off the canon-setting would the Team allow it to go?

[DM Ioulaum]

Baldur's Gate: The Sword Coast Chronicles is a privately run continuous D&D campaign with Neverwinter Nights 2 (NWN2) as its gaming platform. Everybody that wishes to be part of a living, breathing, and evolving Forgotten Realms setting is welcome to join in, provided that they respect our community rules for a good shared online experience. By definition the continuous campaign world is shaped by the players but that does not mean that non-playable characters have no influence in it.

The extent of player influence is best explored by relating it to our game world rule explaining that player characters count as half their actual level in so far as they interact with the setting. The question therefore is, what influence can a group of level 15 players have on the setting?

The answer depends on the roleplay, the die rolls, and the commitment of the players behind the characters. "Is it likely that you will kill a deity or replace Lord Ao as overlord of the Gods?" It isn't, which probably isn't a surprise. "Does that mean it has been ruled out in advance?" No, the Dungeon Master Team and player base respond to what happens in the campaign, we do not determine what shall happen in advance. The difference is that some things carry with them a lot of momentum and therefore need a lot of counter-momentum to stop, and even more to turn them around. However, each little push against the current alters where the apple can fall, so that even little things impact the continuous campaign.

I conclude hopefully leaving you feel wiser, but possibly confused because of the mix of metaphors and references.

[Maecius]

As an addendum, and in the form of a short answer, the DM team is largely open to anything.

Big projects (rebuilding Nashkel, Triel, etc.) require big RP investments.

Killing off named NPCs also requires strong story support as well.

Generally speaking, the lore status quo is comfortable. It's what people know when they sign up for a BG server. But if we weren't open to "coloring outside the lines," we'd not have player initiatives like Doron Amar and the White Mask Theater.

If you go look at the server timeline in the Lore of the Land subforum, you'll see that any of the items colored in blue? Those are the times we've gone "off script" based on community input and DM campaigns.

[Xanfyrst]

My question was mostly aimed at the more ambitious kind of goals. Not "attain godhood"-kind of stuff, but something along the lines of the examples I gave in my OP, fx. Killing off a duke through careful and methodic planning. Would the team invest in such a plan and would they allow it to be carried out if the players involved succeed in whatever they need to do to accomplish it? Or will the DM team sabotage it because it's a rather significant change to the local lore of the setting?

[DM Ioulaum]

Xanfyrst,

I appreciate that from your perspective it may appear as though some ambitions meet a lot of friction - sabotage as you call it with an endearing bias in favor of your own plots - but as Maecius and I related it is possible to assassinate named NPCs. Historically this has happened a number of times, a certain Flaming Fist commander was killed / wounded (Scar), and a certain Amnish General was also killed during the Baldur's Gate - Amn War of 1349 DR.

As Maecius' wrote, careful and methodical planning by itself is not enough. It has to be roleplayed, and that roleplay can be challenged through adversity. Even the best laid plans can go awry, and this happens so often there's even a scientific principle for it: Occam's Razor. The circumstances on the server play a large role in that and depend on other players and groups, as well as the various NPC's involved. Plots are not made impossible in advance, nor are they guaranteed to succeed.

An individual DM's preferences and story telling can play a role. Some DM's have stories they wish to set up until a point is reached where different outcomes are possible. Other DM's are more flexible and do things on the fly, adjusting as the story progresses.

You might recognize the mental image of a DM working weeks in advance making up a plot, drawings, NPCs, and then getting frustrated when it turns out the players do something silly which makes the DM's preparation meaningless... In those cases such a DM can be lenient for the sake of telling a story. That's individual lee-way, but its not encouraged. Such lee-way is not given when the outcome of the story affects other players and Guilds because that is then unfair (to the others).



What I mean to explain to you with this example is that by plotting against important NPCs who are very connected to players you are inevitably limiting the room for lee-way and mistakes, as well as for little pats on the back to steer things on track towards the possible endings. That does not make things impossible, but it does make very ambitious goals very difficult unless everything that can go right does go right. Occam's razor disagrees on principle, but its possible.

I consider the Zhentarim Conquest of Triel an example of a difficult ambition that was successfully realized. The battle of the three pennants was a difficult affair but in hindsight I think it was done as transparently and fairly as possible, and the Zhentarim won through careful methodical roleplayed planning. Its an example of a direct PvP conflict between a number of big player Guilds with NPC back up, and one NPC faction - the Black Orcs. In advance we had several narratives and areas ready depending on how the campaign and battle would do, illustrating that it was entirely open ended with no determined outcome in advance.

Cheers,

DM Ioulaum

[Aikura]

I don't know if my response is worth anything as it is from several years back, but here it is. When I was CC and developed and 1348 campaign, I had secretly hoped that a substantial part of the player-base would turn against the Dukes, and against Entar Silvershield in particular. He made many mistakes that year and - before I departed due to RL circumstances - I had intended him to make many more, some of them likely unforgivable to many characters. I didn't know where it would lead as I sincerely wanted the collective maneuvering of the players to decide. But something big; fighting in the streets, open revolution, or someone taking out Entar permanently (assassination? public lynching?), were most definitely on the cards.

My stance on this was not at all incongruous with the general stance of the team at the time and, looking at what has happened on the server since, I don't think this has changed. I will say though, that most players grossly underestimate how difficult it is to pull something like this off. Even more, they underestimate the players contemporaneously working against them. For every player working for change, there is usually a player working for stability.

[Xanfyrst]

I'm fully aware that such things wouldn't be easy to pull off and that there are forces out there (players) that are pulling things the other way too. All I wanted to know is if the DM team would stand in the way of such rather radical change in status quo, lore and setting-wise, or would give a player or a group of players the chance, how slim it may be, to pull it off.

And Aikura... from when I was part of the Hellstorm Crew during that guild's most active time, we tried to do many things. Both before, during and after the war, but was met with "Can't do" or simply silence. We tried to put our mark on the war, but all we ever got out of it was a single event involving Eltan's girlfriend. Event was good, but we expected more involvement... especially considering we were the only guild openly siding with Amn. I did enjoy the war from the perspective of my old Zhentarim character though, but that's besides the point.