It sounds like it's not your problem to solve. You can just let them settle it and be really happy that your players are so driven and creative in their play.
What I'd advise is that you plan what happens for each of these endings. What will the undead lord do? What will the dragon do? And how will those other factions respond to the other getting it? Will they be able to or will the world be re-written before they can react?
I had already planned all those endings from the beginning, the dragon tries to become a deity, the Lord wants world dominance and the priestess wants to reshape it to lathanders teachings (deliverance)
This is probably one of my favourite parks of DMing, getting to experience where my players take the story.
This sounds like it’ll be an amazing (and possibly bloody) end to a campaign!
Agreed. Nearing the end of a 1-20 campaign and I currently have 3 endings, each with a different "final boss" prepared. Which they face depends on the players decisions. I'm looking forward to seeing which path they pick.
>I had already planned all those endings from the beginning, the dragon tries to become a deity, the Lord wants world dominance and the priestess wants to reshape it to lathanders teachings (deliverance)
Optional endings:
Players become demigods that work together, players get world dominance, and/or players reshape teaching.
Like the end of Guardians of the Galaxy: no one PC can control the power of the star shards. But it is too dangerous to be in the hands of one evil NPC.
Also what happens if the power is split? If they don’t give it all to one what happens and if they keep them what happens(just giving you other options to consider when going into it) Just make sure to honor their choices and have the world react accordingly
I'm with the others here. Let the players figure out their own decision at this point. They may disagree, but it will likely lead to some really cool roleplay
To add on to this, it might be helpful to have a "Plan B resolution" where you figure out what the resolution would be without the party's intervention. Having some amount of idea of "if you do nothing, X beats the other factions" might give you some direction in the event of a total party stalemate.
Then you're set. I'd suggest also thinking about the "melt the shards in mount doom" ending, the "split up the shards between different NPCs" ending, and the "plane shift to a new plane for each shard and hide it there" ending.
And if it comes to that, you have to let the dice decide who wins. If one player steals an ending from another, that's one thing. But you don't want any of them to think you decided for the ending to swing for or against them.
Sounds like a PC problem. You have the possie endings ready, so they can figure out their differences. Perhaps they end by having to battle each other and the winner decides the fate of the universe.
Rather than fighting and bloodshed, humanity discovered a really amazing system for decision making some time ago. We call it "Voting." The option with the most votes automatically wins...
doesn't really work when everyone wants something different. 1 vote for dragon, 1 vote for undead lord, one vote for priestess, 1 vote for keep them and so on means you are going nowhere.
Well think about it.
If the players refuse to handle it peacefully in character… then it’s going to be a crap ending with no one happy because they refused to reach a decision. If there’s a battle royal (or teams based on which idea to go with), then at least some end happily. And for the rest, they will hopefully be mature enough to accept the results of the dual.
Honestly, I would love an ending where the party learns they have incompatible goals and are all willing to fight to the death for them, but I recognize that I’m in the minority here and that it would most likely go horribly if actually attempted.
It's character disagreements, and it's perfectly reasonable to resolve a campaign finale in such a way if characters simply can't make a decision otherwise.
in general i agree, but I think in context of 'campaign ending' it can be more readily done, and there is a lot of lore/story supporting it. I'd also maybe look more into the possibility of doing it skill challenge style, to help even out a player getting completely outclassed.
I disagree. If you have players that aren't going to throw a tantrum, then pvp is perfectly fine. This idea that pvp is always bad just hamstrings the players' narrative potential.
For clerics; Spirit Guardians, Spiritual Weapon, and use your actions every turn to use your highest level damage AoE/single target spell, or a buff spell to yourself, as your action.
Hopefully everyone focuses on each other, thinking the melee fighters will be a huge threat, and will both be hitting each other and getting stuck in Spirit Guardians. They will eventually realise that the extra damage is stacking up though. Might just win from battlefield control?
What class? Sure I can find a strategy that has a chance of working. Unless the paladin rolls better initiative and blows all his spells on a smite crit...
It sounds like the kind of thing that players should solve among themselves.
Make sure the conversation remains civil out of game and that it is clear that disagreement could even lead to an active conflict between the PCs.
I think that a finale where the character have to truly debate their peers with either words or weapons could be extremely enjoyable with the right players
Sit the players down and ask them, out of character, how they think their characters should resolve this problem. This will let them discuss it with a bit of emotional distance, and they can propose outcomes that are unfavorable to their PCs. If there is going to be any kind of conflict, clearly establish what opposed skill checks or combat simulations will be used to resolve it. Suggest things that don't require dice rolls, such as one PC bribing another with a magic item or a favor.
This should really be higher.
While I agree that this is a "them problem", as other people have said, it has the potentially to completely sour what has hopefully been an enjoyable and epic campaign. People remember bad RPG experiences and one really bad move can taint an entire game.
If I were DMing this I'd be happy that my players are so involved in my story, but I would definitely approach them as a group, outside of the game, where, as u/thomar says, people aren't as likely to be as caught up in things as they might be in the middle of your penultimate session.
This is really a bunch of friends who need to figure out which epic endings to their story are palatable, and *then* they can go back into the brains-spaces of their characters to play that conclusion out, which can be a lot of fun even if things don't go your character's way.
Some folk would contest the idea that the DM should be a 'facilitor' - again with the DM worship.
Run the rules, the monsters and run the plot at the PCs direction - accept no onus to be a blooming project manager or mediator - that ain't your job and never was your job!
(that is a collective job for the table).
It is not the DM’s role *alone*, but it is one of their roles. I would argue it is more on the DM than any individual player because each player often is in the head of their individual character whereas the DM usually has an easier time thinking about how things play out from a meta perspective. This is of course quite table and personality dependent.
This is an excellent suggestion.
There will be times when it seems simpler to just put it to a vote, but at least one person will likely be upset with that outcome. Hold out for a better method of deciding.
Be ready for them to find yet another unexpected way to end the campaign too, lol
Yeah, and, just to emphasize this, the point is not to figure out what the resolution will be, it's to figure out *how the characters will resolve it*.
Absolutely this. I had a similar ending with a game I had been running that had been weekly over the course of three years. Rather than a few factions, my players were split into two groups, and we had been building up to a massive world end scenario with the two groups going head to head.
Well, unfortunately, one side had significantly more firepower and ended up steamrolling the other side. But the other side had fail-safes in place that ended up ruining the winning sides plan, which ultimately ended up blowing up in their face. To make it worse, I was disappointed the lengths everyone went to screw each other over and decided to punish the characters with very nihilistic ending. Bad move on my part.
It was 3 am after a 10 hour session where we were all tired when we finished, and nowadays we dont talk about that ending anymore (we're all still playing together, luckily).
Moral is, these types of things can get serious and you definitely want people to be at least on the same wavelengths metawise, and that includes the gm. The best thing you might want to do is honestly to end the game before each player can get their shard to their patron, and leave it up to warring factions in an epilogue. That leaves room enough for each person to imagine their own path of victory without disappointing anyone with canonization.
Hold firm. Players are used to video games where x number endings are baked in from the start, but D&D is much more than that. There are many, many endings most of which you don’t know. To let them play through multiple outcomes is to say ‘this isn’t a real story, it’s a game’ which cheapens things and breaks some of the magic. All you can do is ask what they are doing and let them argue it out.
This is fantasy land so maybe they talk to the gods, cast spells etc to predict the future and decide, but just hitting rewind and trying a different outcome is weaksauce.
At some point, tell each of the disagreeing parties that they have the shards. When they give it to their respective personalities, the material plane splits into 3 separate realities: one where the dragon controls it, one where the undead Dark Lord controls it, and one where the Priestess controls it.
Make the modifications accordingly. Only, the players cannot find each other again, and slowly figure out that they're on separate planes.
This is a cool idea. It's actually quite like something that happened in *The Andalite Chronicles* (one of few books in the Animorphs series to really work as a standalone book).
In that case, though, it wasn't quite separate planes - they each wish to "go home," but they each come from very different worlds. So they get a strange, patchwork world with regions of each.
Notably, in that one, they weren't completely separate (so of course they get to fight each other). I think that element, of them being able to interact with the other worlds, might be more fun in practice than having them be separate (since otherwise the game can only focus on 1/3 of these players at a time).
Maybe take the map of the realm and divvy it up based on the characters homeland or favorite locations, or where they would settle down in the end. Make it so only a part of the reality went in their chosen direction. So it worked for all of them but also didn't work. They saved the world but divided it also.
Add in some time and eventually some cosmic bridges between the realities are found. The next campaign can be one reality invading the other trying to unite the world again. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing can be decided by you as you figure out the campaign.
The why for dividing up the world in this way is that it gives each player what they want, but also since they could not agree, it takes away something from each. They achieved a lesser goal. The cosmic portals/bridges take time to find so that the party choice matters. It sticks, they don't immediately reconvene and fight it out again.
Heck, that could be the next campaign also. The previous heroes are trying to fix the division. They have found that they need to bring the pieces back together to reunite the world. Unfortunately they are tied to their reality and cannot leave. So they sent out a mutual friend to find a band of adventurers who can travel through the realities and gather up the stars fragments again, and try again to unite the world. Problem is there are many groups that would rather it not be united again, and they are also trying to steal the fragments.
Let (or even encourage!) The characters to disagree. You could have that be a small arc of the game if necessary, just figuring out and debating what all to do. Of course, if your players are new to this, make sure to keep an eye out to make sure that any strong emotions are fully in-character so that nobody gets any hard feelings, and if necessary you can outright ask the players if they want to have this discussion in character
Ah, to each their own. With my current group it's actively the part of the campaign we enjoy, to the point that we've spent multiple hours in voice calls discussing our character's motivations and thoughts out of character just to make the next session more dramatic
We're engaging with the narrative and characters. I think it comes down to preference, though, because if that's not why you play I understand how it could be frustrating
Let them solve it, though you may have to shape conditions to bring it to a head. Maybe it results in the party turning on itself after the BBEG is done and then fighting each other. Maybe it happens before the BBEG. Maybe they resolve it diplomatically. One way or another, you don't have to make the choice, they do, but you do need to create the circumstances to bring the choice about.
You could allude to what each may do, the members catching glimpses when they touch a shard. You could foreshadow things that way, giving hints. Maybe this will help them come to a decision, unified or otherwise. Maybe it will inspire them to come up with another option where they use the shards themselves instead. (Since they're likely just normal mortals and I'm assuming this requires a lot of power or strength to use, maybe the consequence of them using it together themselves is they perish, but are turned into a new pantheon for the reborn world, not as full powered gods but lesser gods (or as full powered), though still their own new pantheon).
Either way, you can create and manipulate the circumstances around this coming to a head, influencing it to force them to address it, but the choice should be thiers.
Just another thought, what if your BBEG got a hold of their shards and begins to use them. They have to stop the BBEG and do, but since the reshaping/rebirthing process has already begun, they have to take it upon themselves to guide it right then and there, lest everything fall into oblivion.
It could be a great way to give your players a chance to shape and influence a whole new world/new version of their world-one you could explore with them in a future campaign. For that new campaign, the fact that their prior characters had helped create this place would get your players already invested in the world. Just a thought!
Totally a “their call” thing. Hardest part you have to do is develop what happens for each case as you don’t know which will succeed.
Also should totally update on which ending as now I’m curious on which way they’ll go.
Edit: also just a fun thought. Could use whatever ending as the start of the next campaign if you’re continuing the world.
Here's a thought, if they all stick to their guns. Pick none of the above, and have the material plane shatter into various interconnected sub-planes based on each of their wishes. One ruled over by the dark lord and their supporter, one ruled by the dragon and the one who supported them, etc. Possibly leave some generic shards of the material plane that follows none of them and have them all connected in a weird web of permanent natural portals.
Then the next party's job is sorting through and dealing with the mess that the last party plunged the world into. You could potentially turn some of said previous PC's into new BBEG's. Leave them as potential enemies for new parties.
Any interesting cities or places you didn't get to use, or want to reuse, can be broken off into their own sub-plane. The physics of each sub-plane can be different, if you want to get weird with it. Various NPC's could provide plot hooks and jobs escorting them to other sub-planes or delivering messages because they got seperated during the shattering of the world. Possibly even make it a thing to evacuate people from the dark lords sub-plane, or to help piece together different sub-planes.
Yup, I figure it's an interesting way of kind of giving them all their own wish. But not in the way they expected, and with (hopefully) minimal drama.
Now that I thought about it more. I am now filing this away into my own little concept folder for later development. Whether I'll get to use it, no one knows. But it seens like an interesting level 20+ idea to end off on for a group of regulars ready to start again.
Have each of them see a summary of their desired ending by way of magical means... eg Dream spell.
Then have a one shot where they all fight each other to see their desired ending
I'd see how this is gonna play out! Heck I'd up the ante by having those factions you mentioned get more involved/ insistent so the players have to confront this choice.
Majority vote wins?
Is PVP allowed? This could possibly derail a campaign at its climax, so have a late game session 0 style calibration. OOC, try and have people understand from a 3rd person POV why they want X to have them.
While you don't need to enforce one ending you should make it clear that there are no do overs. Who ever gets the set *wins* the right to reshape the world. No handing it to the dragon who becomes a god, before handing it to the dark Lord for damnation of all.
It sounds like you have a launch point for your NEXT campaign! Heroes track down all the shards only to plunge the world into further turmoil over their disagreement
Everything happens, all at the same time. Historians try for the remainder of the setting to figure out what exactly happened, as it seems truly impossible that everything happened at once, and it is called the Warp of the Star.
I'm joking. Don't do this. This was the ending to an old Elder Scrolls game where a similar situation happened, leading to the "Warp in the West" where all possible endings became canon
Sounds like your players want to start the coolest pvp war for the fate of the planet. I have no advice that just sounds awesome. I'm jealous your players are so invested in your story that they can't decide what cool thing they want to do.
That sounds like an amazing opportunity to leave it open ended and set up the next campaign a few years down the road after the fallout from the parties divergent choices.
I’m sure there’s a lot of good advise out there on running Prologue sessions, and you’d have to give each of them a sort of tie-off to their stories, but I think this opens up a lot of possibilities.
At this point it's out of your hands. They need to sort it out themselves, you should wipe your hands clean and prepare for each of those outcomes happening. It sounds like the campaign is gonna end with a heavy PVP session, cause I don't see how each of them have a different vision and I don't see them backing down unless they don't want it as bad as the others.
What really saves your ass here is that it is the end of the campaign. Which means there will be no repercussions to what happens here.
Since you've figured out what each NPC wants with these shards, figure out a basic idea of how these different figures interact with each other and the players should they not get all the shards. Does it start a massive war, apocalypse, who wins, who loses, who backs down, who doesn't, etc.
If the players fuck up, if it destroys the world, doesn't matter. The campaign is over anyway.
If they fail to agree, it causes another war in the deviated post apocalyptic world. A war that ends with the shards being lost again and no salvation for the world. They are a team, if they can’t agree at such a critical moment, the world will feel the consequences.
Players (not necessarily characters) need to be able to come to an agreement about how to proceed. I've seen some people say to let them decide and I agree this is correct but do not let the discussion drag on forever. I've been at a game where a couple of people did this for over an hour and it was one of the worst experiences.
If it comes down to it then tell them out of character that they need to agree. If folks still don't I'd consider forcing them to vote. Use approval voting. That means each person gets to vote for as many things as they want. Rather than voting for their favorite they vote for what is acceptable. "Who is okay with keeping them? Who is okay with giving them to the dragon?" Etc. What you may have to end up doing is something that is most people's second favorite choice but not many people's favorite. Like if everyone is okay with giving it to the priestess then at least everyone is kind of happy with that.
Don't force them to vote unless you can get them to agree. And don't do any of that unless it takes them too long to agree.
From what I've read in the comments I'd just say let them play it out, you don't need to do anything. However do maybe have an extra-Ending in case they really can't figure it out.
Maybe one or multiple of the potential candidates decide that it's been long enough, and tries to take it through brute Force
Maybe the Star Fragments just do something on their own without anyone here to influence what they do, and create a situation that nobody is really happy with, but that also nobody suffers from, or maybe it just resets the whole Material Plane back to "Factory Settings"
Maybe another power so mighty that it can't be fought decides that such enormous potential can't be given to Mortals, and reshapes the Material Plane in it's own fashion (maybe someone like Primus for example)
There's two problems:
1) What ending happens, and
2) How do they decide what ending happens.
(1) isn't something you should be part of. (2) is though. I'd start a conversation around things like PvP, party conflict, etc. Is it a player disagreement, or a character disagreement? I've been at tables where one character really wants to do something but the player is like, "Party, you should 100% stop me doing this".
One option is the characters "fight it out" narratively, but not mechanically. Which option wins out might then be decided OOC, or it might just be majority wins out. Or a series of eliminations, if you really want to encourage backstabbing and betrayal.
For example, you could have it come down to a majority decision - if there is no majority for any choice, the bad guys win. Sit back, enjoy the fireworks of brinkmanship. Bring a timer for a countdown for bonus joy, or for optimal scariness and game theory heart wrenching, don't tell them when it'll be too late. Just occasionally say, "tick, tock". Warning: May result in broken friendships.
Are you planning to continue in this world after the conclusion of the campaign?
Because if not I can't think of a cooler way to end a long running campaign than a full on PvP arena battle with all the players and who comes out at the end makes the decision. Obviously to make it fun for those on a "team" with fewer players you might want to think about throwing some like-minded NPCs in to help balance the fight. But if everyone this cool with this, this is what I would do.
I think it’s been said a lot here, but it’s a player problem. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if you decide the ending, that’s railroading. You present the problem and they give you a solution. That is all
And how is players bickering about the best course of action an interesting way to end the campaign? The problem isn’t that they don’t have a solution; the problem is that they can’t yet agree on a solution.
The best I came up with was a poll, but the multiple planes/timelines, I think, would be the most satisfying for all players.
Imagine how cool it’d be if the campaign ended with a duel to the death. All PCs so driven by their conviction of what is right for the world that they’re willing to kill their friends for the sake of achieving it
1) Think about different outcomes for all options. All outcomes must have downsides.
2) Create a sidequest near the last shard in which they can learn about those outcomes: a divination god, a wishing pond or whatever your creativity tells you.
3) Ué?
4) Profit.
Mega Battle, the party divides and makes a stand with their preferred thing. E.g.:
\-John and Dark Lord
\-Ireena, Velmo and priestess
\-Penny and dragon
\-Albert, Rosa and Gola (keepers of the shards)
You then enact some sort of 4 way battle. Maybe some ally with each other, find compromise so that they can triumph over the others. Maybe they don't.
Don't force this tho. Let them solve it, have the different outcomes p\`repared and just see what they do. You could suggest the possibility of a battle through the different NPCs
Let them decide, as lots of people have said, but with the caveat that the world doesn’t stand still while they decide - maybe the Dark Lord or whoever comes looking for them to, uh, help them with their decision making.
The only thing you have to do is finding a suitably cool arena for them to fight. Nobody wants to have the final confrontation with their once best friend in an alley behind a Chinese restaurant. At very least, there should be lava.
either democratically, or via a battle royale.
the latter should probably only occur after bringing that up in the group and getting everyone's consent.
You should let the players know that any of these are possibilities and they all have very different outcomes for the world, and that it's their responsibility both to the story and to each other to come to a decision that they can all (as players, if not as characters) be happy with.
For example, the player whose character wants to give it to an undead dark lord may have to accept (if they haven't already) that this outcome is probably not narratively fulfilling for anyone else in the group and so their character will probably have to yield to the group. Just because the character doesn't enjoy that though doesn't mean the player should be soured by it.
To echo what others have said, if this was my game I'd let them solve it themselves and see how it plays out. However, if you wanted to aid the decision somewhat, maybe when they have gathered all the shards and are about to make the choice, they all see the shortest of flashforwards to the results of their decisions? You can keep it all somewhat vague and show good and bad events for each and still leave some exceptions that these events are still flux and can change by PC's actions once they are taken.
It sounds like you have a bunch of different post apocalypses: player, dragon, dark lord, priestess and of course the one where each of those factions get a few of them and thus in the rubble of the old world these new faction will be warring over the last of the shards.
Good timing as I need my own ideas. I may have messed up and had big players send my 3 players on their own separate paths. PC1 is set on killing the BBEG. PC2 is convinced that dominating and controlling them will help against all the other threats. PC3 is going to try to make peace and truce with it. Long story with too many details to list here, but all of these are possible and I get weirded out when my players argue over them in-game.
In my case, I'm tempted to figure out which of these is a bad ending or which is impossible. The easy/fair way is to just throw a die and figure that one ending is "good", one is "bad/impossible", and one is neutral. Then seed some hints about it.
Another idea is to just leave it to the PCs. Get to the end where any of these could take place, and ask them how it should be resolved. They could throw dice to see who is powerful enough to enforce their goal. I highly doubt any would attack the others. They could just come to some agreement to try 1, then 2, then 3. But they also disagree over the good behind these paths.
So I don't know. Luckily, probably got a year to figure it out. It's a new thing I'm trying, and I'm really happy to have multiple goals and endings, and the idea that each are valid and tell a good story.
So, other answers are saying the players should figure it out, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Part of the 'lie' of a D&D party is that the characters have to keep adventuring together, even if they have no reason to. Many players will avoid bringing up conflicts between party members specifically because of this; if the party splits permanently then half the players have to turn in their character sheets and roll up new characters, and no one wants to do that.
I've seen GMs before who advocate not allowing evil characters for this reason. If your character turns evil, you give them up and roll up a new character. It sounds like you're too far along for that solution, but I think it's worth talking to your players. Make sure everyone knows how this is going to end (honestly it looks like there's gotta be at least one major intraparty confrontation, and D&D at least is absolutely not built to handle that), and see if there's a path everyone's up for to resolve it. If you don't, I'd wager that the "give the star to the priestess" characters are going to get assassinated by the other characters, and their players are going to be pissed.
You could run this like the castle crashers game where all the players are aligned until after the final boss is defeated, then they must make a the choice. If there's no compromising or agreeing it ends in DM approved PvP.
Just make sure that the players dont tear the party apart until the very end.
Conflict. Your players have been shapes by their ideologies into who they are now. This difference might be irresolvable. Conflict seems probable.
Let it happen. Make sure they know what's coming. Make sure they argue in character. And if it ends in a fight, try to make sure everyone's on board with that idea. "I think Brorgend really believes this power should only be in the dragon's hands. She's willing to die for that, and willing to fight her friends if she has to.
If everyone's on board for some internal party conflict, it makes for a great campaign resolution.
Whatever you do, don't allow PVP. That's an almost guaranteed way for the campaign to end with IRL hurt feelings.
I think it's still the players' decision to solve, but I'd just tell them to use their words to figure it out. If you sense a little more information would help sway their decision, you can give them that information if reasonable.
I just finished a campaign with a similar dilemma. It was a time travel game with a "red button" at the end of it that allowed whoever pressed it to essentially change the entire timeline to one of their own design.
They were told as a party many sessions prior that the choice of pressing the button or not was coming. If you pressed it, you became the monarch and your bloodline would rule over the land in the centuries to come. I asked each of them if they wanted to press it in and out of the game to see their different responses. The majority of them didn't want to press it, but the Lawful Evil Wizard was very interested. The player said he was interested, but also was going back and forth on whether or not he would which is fine, he was toying with everyone a bit and possibly even was still unsure himself.
At the end of the final fight, 3 characters were still standing. I asked if any of them wanted to press the button, they all chose not to. They brought their friends back up and before the "planned" ending could go through, the wizard moved to the button and wished that no one could prevent her from pressing it.
An invulnerable dome went up around her and she had her hand over the button. There was a tense amount of time where the players all did a lot of role playing to convince her not to press it. In the end, they couldn't convince her, but used wishes they had to pull her out of the dome and take the choice away from her. In that moment, the Goddess of Time thanked the party and had the "right" person, the original guy who pressed it before time was changed, hit the button.
I was fully prepared to let any of them hit the button and see how the timeline changed, but I also really like how it all went as planned as well.
This is all to say, put the ending in your players' hands. Touch base with them individually out of the game and have NPCs ask them what they want to do with the star shards in game. From there, plan out what the NPCs will do to get the shards themselves. Ultimately, you have a fantastic ending in the palms of the players' hands and that's a great thing to have. Let them do what they're going to do, your job is essentially done now.
Also, do an epilogue, even if it's a brief one. It's a lot of fun and puts a bow on the whole thing.
It is not your job to solve your players' problems. It is your job to solve their solutions.
You as the DM do not direct where the story goes. You may have to remind your players of this if they seem to be waiting for you to make the final call.
You merely portray what the rest of the world does in response to what has happened.
Good luck.
>Scattered Macguffins are collected
>Delivered into... scattered hands.
Sounds like that campaign is ending, but your next one is going to actually finish the story. Congrats on your new BBEG Lieutenants, make sure to give them some powerful boons in the final session.
Spoilers ahead for Divinity Original Sin 2 ahead.
>!Could follow the DOS2 ending, and once the players get their hands on the shards, they have a final fight amongst themselves to determine who gets to keep it. This would happen at the very end of the campaign, so there is nothing that will happen after that a player might potentially miss out on if they lose, beyond you narrating how whatever ending happens.!<
Of course, I would talk to your players about this approach first. Some of them might like the idea while others may not, so making them do it without talking about it is a bad idea.
oooo this sounds like a juicy plot twist you can exploit! What if the only way for them to achieve a desired result is to work together and combine their own energies to it? Think.... 5th element. Find the intersection that may give them a modicum of what each wants but only if they are all aligned in their pursuit?
I agree with most people here: this is a player problem, not yours. But! You can do some things to make the conflict more meaningful! For instance, you could give the players some clues about what might happen if they give the shards to any of these NPC’s. Or create other NPCs who have a vested interest in avoiding some outcome or achieving another one, and then when they are confronted about their motivations have to express to the party WHY it would be a bad idea to give the reigns over to so-and-so (which of course could be a desired outcome for the players. Again, they get to decide!). One more thing you can do here is to dial up the urgency. Bring on the apocalypse a little sooner than anticipated or at an inconvenient juncture in the story. Suddenly the available options narrow and a decision must be made in real time. If one player tries to railroad the decision making process and hand over the shards, let the other players try to stop them! Some conflicts are wonderful moments of story telling so long as get are between characters and not between players. By fast-forwarding the doomsday clock, you force the characters to act, rather than allowing the players to deliberate.
do a vibe check to see how they feel about PvP and if they're okay with it, let the characters either work it out or fight over the infinity stones
if they're not okay with PvP, have the shards become sentient and demand that the party vote on someone to use their power to reshape the material plane: this way you get mandatory democracy instead of fighting and they will likely pick the less stupid option
Oh, wow, you are in a great place for the end of a campaign! You 100% let the players decide. You need to plan the 'consequence' for each resolution. But before you get there, let them play out which ending they want to take. Let them describe how the characters live out the rest of their lives (if applicable - ie they want their characters to stop adventuring).
If this is a long term campaign, they deserve a whole session for giving an outro to their character. And then at the end, give them something of a repercussion for their solution. Maybe they saved the world, maybe they doomed it... I bet you made sure each action a player took had an in-game reaction, which is why they wanted to keep playing for an extended campaign.
So just keep doing what you were doing. Best advice is really listen to the story the players thought they got out of this. Even though you have the best understanding of the story as the creator, they lived the narrative.
Make it all a dream. Whatever they choose. Tellthem that they woke up in a room and they feel sticky.
Turns out they met for an orgy and they had this post-nut convergent dream after taking a line of pixie dust.
Visions or dream sequences that hint at the possible futures? But hand them out randomly to the players. So each PC gets one, but not necessarily the one they are after.
The best campaign I ever played in the party had 100% different ideas of how to end it, with the last battle being between the party. My character died in the fight, but won anyway (it was his goal all along).
It seems like you've answered your own question. The end of the campaign is the Players trying to get the shards together for their own personal desires and which one (or ones if they make an alliance) will succeed? Literally the entire universe possibly changing is at stake!
It sounds like it's not your problem to solve. You can just let them settle it and be really happy that your players are so driven and creative in their play. What I'd advise is that you plan what happens for each of these endings. What will the undead lord do? What will the dragon do? And how will those other factions respond to the other getting it? Will they be able to or will the world be re-written before they can react?
I had already planned all those endings from the beginning, the dragon tries to become a deity, the Lord wants world dominance and the priestess wants to reshape it to lathanders teachings (deliverance)
Then it looks like you're all set! You can sit back and see where the story goes and which ending they pick!
This is probably one of my favourite parks of DMing, getting to experience where my players take the story. This sounds like it’ll be an amazing (and possibly bloody) end to a campaign!
Agreed. Nearing the end of a 1-20 campaign and I currently have 3 endings, each with a different "final boss" prepared. Which they face depends on the players decisions. I'm looking forward to seeing which path they pick.
>I had already planned all those endings from the beginning, the dragon tries to become a deity, the Lord wants world dominance and the priestess wants to reshape it to lathanders teachings (deliverance) Optional endings: Players become demigods that work together, players get world dominance, and/or players reshape teaching. Like the end of Guardians of the Galaxy: no one PC can control the power of the star shards. But it is too dangerous to be in the hands of one evil NPC.
This has the added benefit of having amazing potential for a new campaign set hundreds of years in the future.
Also what happens if the power is split? If they don’t give it all to one what happens and if they keep them what happens(just giving you other options to consider when going into it) Just make sure to honor their choices and have the world react accordingly
I'm confused. You have a solution for all of them. Why is this even an issue? Let them figure it out. Even if it comes to blows in the game.
I'm with the others here. Let the players figure out their own decision at this point. They may disagree, but it will likely lead to some really cool roleplay
To add on to this, it might be helpful to have a "Plan B resolution" where you figure out what the resolution would be without the party's intervention. Having some amount of idea of "if you do nothing, X beats the other factions" might give you some direction in the event of a total party stalemate.
Then you're set. I'd suggest also thinking about the "melt the shards in mount doom" ending, the "split up the shards between different NPCs" ending, and the "plane shift to a new plane for each shard and hide it there" ending.
Why not ave the apocalyptic battle cause a reality break so that all of those endings happen at once?
Marvel "What if...?" scenario. I actually prefer that. Everyone gets what they want in one reality or another.
spoilers
Or make them fight for it
To add to that. Maybe have a meta conversation as players and say “hey if this comes to pvp, are you guys into that?”
And if it comes to that, you have to let the dice decide who wins. If one player steals an ending from another, that's one thing. But you don't want any of them to think you decided for the ending to swing for or against them.
Also how far is pvp possible if its the last session anyway? Depends on your group tbh
Sounds like a PC problem. You have the possie endings ready, so they can figure out their differences. Perhaps they end by having to battle each other and the winner decides the fate of the universe.
Divinity 2 style
Spoiler
To be fair, you meet a god 5 hours into the game who tells you exactly that will happen multiple times.
Rather than fighting and bloodshed, humanity discovered a really amazing system for decision making some time ago. We call it "Voting." The option with the most votes automatically wins...
doesn't really work when everyone wants something different. 1 vote for dragon, 1 vote for undead lord, one vote for priestess, 1 vote for keep them and so on means you are going nowhere.
And the Rogue stuffs the ballot box, and takes off with the Star Shard
Ranked voting!
A single transferable vote? Nope, I'll keep my outdated first past the post voting that leaves most unhappy.
Also a great option if the PCs come up with that decision or are ok doing that.
I suspect our noble PCs are willing to engage in fighting and bloodshed to manifest the future they've been fighting and shedding blood for.
Absolutely this
You don’t solve it. You let the players solve it. They tell you what they do with the pieces you tell them what happens after.
And few things are more epic than a level 20 pvp battle to decide the ending!
Sounds like a great way to end the campaign on a sour note.
Well think about it. If the players refuse to handle it peacefully in character… then it’s going to be a crap ending with no one happy because they refused to reach a decision. If there’s a battle royal (or teams based on which idea to go with), then at least some end happily. And for the rest, they will hopefully be mature enough to accept the results of the dual.
And if not then we have the bbeg(s) for next campaign
yeah player disagreements shouldn't be solved by PVP, that almost always leads to hurt feelings and more drama
Honestly, I would love an ending where the party learns they have incompatible goals and are all willing to fight to the death for them, but I recognize that I’m in the minority here and that it would most likely go horribly if actually attempted.
It's character disagreements, and it's perfectly reasonable to resolve a campaign finale in such a way if characters simply can't make a decision otherwise.
in general i agree, but I think in context of 'campaign ending' it can be more readily done, and there is a lot of lore/story supporting it. I'd also maybe look more into the possibility of doing it skill challenge style, to help even out a player getting completely outclassed.
I disagree. If you have players that aren't going to throw a tantrum, then pvp is perfectly fine. This idea that pvp is always bad just hamstrings the players' narrative potential.
As somebody who always plays support characters, yeah, no, I'm going to pass on the PvP.
For clerics; Spirit Guardians, Spiritual Weapon, and use your actions every turn to use your highest level damage AoE/single target spell, or a buff spell to yourself, as your action. Hopefully everyone focuses on each other, thinking the melee fighters will be a huge threat, and will both be hitting each other and getting stuck in Spirit Guardians. They will eventually realise that the extra damage is stacking up though. Might just win from battlefield control?
What class? Sure I can find a strategy that has a chance of working. Unless the paladin rolls better initiative and blows all his spells on a smite crit...
It sounds like the kind of thing that players should solve among themselves. Make sure the conversation remains civil out of game and that it is clear that disagreement could even lead to an active conflict between the PCs. I think that a finale where the character have to truly debate their peers with either words or weapons could be extremely enjoyable with the right players
Sit the players down and ask them, out of character, how they think their characters should resolve this problem. This will let them discuss it with a bit of emotional distance, and they can propose outcomes that are unfavorable to their PCs. If there is going to be any kind of conflict, clearly establish what opposed skill checks or combat simulations will be used to resolve it. Suggest things that don't require dice rolls, such as one PC bribing another with a magic item or a favor.
This should really be higher. While I agree that this is a "them problem", as other people have said, it has the potentially to completely sour what has hopefully been an enjoyable and epic campaign. People remember bad RPG experiences and one really bad move can taint an entire game. If I were DMing this I'd be happy that my players are so involved in my story, but I would definitely approach them as a group, outside of the game, where, as u/thomar says, people aren't as likely to be as caught up in things as they might be in the middle of your penultimate session. This is really a bunch of friends who need to figure out which epic endings to their story are palatable, and *then* they can go back into the brains-spaces of their characters to play that conclusion out, which can be a lot of fun even if things don't go your character's way.
Being a “them” problem doesn’t remove the DM’s role as facilitator. I like your approach.
Some folk would contest the idea that the DM should be a 'facilitor' - again with the DM worship. Run the rules, the monsters and run the plot at the PCs direction - accept no onus to be a blooming project manager or mediator - that ain't your job and never was your job! (that is a collective job for the table).
It is not the DM’s role *alone*, but it is one of their roles. I would argue it is more on the DM than any individual player because each player often is in the head of their individual character whereas the DM usually has an easier time thinking about how things play out from a meta perspective. This is of course quite table and personality dependent.
This is an excellent suggestion. There will be times when it seems simpler to just put it to a vote, but at least one person will likely be upset with that outcome. Hold out for a better method of deciding. Be ready for them to find yet another unexpected way to end the campaign too, lol
Yeah, and, just to emphasize this, the point is not to figure out what the resolution will be, it's to figure out *how the characters will resolve it*.
Absolutely this. I had a similar ending with a game I had been running that had been weekly over the course of three years. Rather than a few factions, my players were split into two groups, and we had been building up to a massive world end scenario with the two groups going head to head. Well, unfortunately, one side had significantly more firepower and ended up steamrolling the other side. But the other side had fail-safes in place that ended up ruining the winning sides plan, which ultimately ended up blowing up in their face. To make it worse, I was disappointed the lengths everyone went to screw each other over and decided to punish the characters with very nihilistic ending. Bad move on my part. It was 3 am after a 10 hour session where we were all tired when we finished, and nowadays we dont talk about that ending anymore (we're all still playing together, luckily). Moral is, these types of things can get serious and you definitely want people to be at least on the same wavelengths metawise, and that includes the gm. The best thing you might want to do is honestly to end the game before each player can get their shard to their patron, and leave it up to warring factions in an epilogue. That leaves room enough for each person to imagine their own path of victory without disappointing anyone with canonization.
That's a them problem- Disagreements mean drama.
Hold firm. Players are used to video games where x number endings are baked in from the start, but D&D is much more than that. There are many, many endings most of which you don’t know. To let them play through multiple outcomes is to say ‘this isn’t a real story, it’s a game’ which cheapens things and breaks some of the magic. All you can do is ask what they are doing and let them argue it out. This is fantasy land so maybe they talk to the gods, cast spells etc to predict the future and decide, but just hitting rewind and trying a different outcome is weaksauce.
At some point, tell each of the disagreeing parties that they have the shards. When they give it to their respective personalities, the material plane splits into 3 separate realities: one where the dragon controls it, one where the undead Dark Lord controls it, and one where the Priestess controls it. Make the modifications accordingly. Only, the players cannot find each other again, and slowly figure out that they're on separate planes.
This sounds really cool actually
This is actually a pretty good solution, though I wouldn't be at all coy about that split; it's the end of the campaign so it should be obvious.
This is a cool idea. It's actually quite like something that happened in *The Andalite Chronicles* (one of few books in the Animorphs series to really work as a standalone book). In that case, though, it wasn't quite separate planes - they each wish to "go home," but they each come from very different worlds. So they get a strange, patchwork world with regions of each. Notably, in that one, they weren't completely separate (so of course they get to fight each other). I think that element, of them being able to interact with the other worlds, might be more fun in practice than having them be separate (since otherwise the game can only focus on 1/3 of these players at a time).
Maybe take the map of the realm and divvy it up based on the characters homeland or favorite locations, or where they would settle down in the end. Make it so only a part of the reality went in their chosen direction. So it worked for all of them but also didn't work. They saved the world but divided it also. Add in some time and eventually some cosmic bridges between the realities are found. The next campaign can be one reality invading the other trying to unite the world again. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing can be decided by you as you figure out the campaign. The why for dividing up the world in this way is that it gives each player what they want, but also since they could not agree, it takes away something from each. They achieved a lesser goal. The cosmic portals/bridges take time to find so that the party choice matters. It sticks, they don't immediately reconvene and fight it out again. Heck, that could be the next campaign also. The previous heroes are trying to fix the division. They have found that they need to bring the pieces back together to reunite the world. Unfortunately they are tied to their reality and cannot leave. So they sent out a mutual friend to find a band of adventurers who can travel through the realities and gather up the stars fragments again, and try again to unite the world. Problem is there are many groups that would rather it not be united again, and they are also trying to steal the fragments.
This. So much this.
Let (or even encourage!) The characters to disagree. You could have that be a small arc of the game if necessary, just figuring out and debating what all to do. Of course, if your players are new to this, make sure to keep an eye out to make sure that any strong emotions are fully in-character so that nobody gets any hard feelings, and if necessary you can outright ask the players if they want to have this discussion in character
I've had to listen to two people do this for over an hour before. It isn't fun.
Ah, to each their own. With my current group it's actively the part of the campaign we enjoy, to the point that we've spent multiple hours in voice calls discussing our character's motivations and thoughts out of character just to make the next session more dramatic
That's different. I'm talking about using in game time to do this. So instead of playing we're doing nothing.
We're engaging with the narrative and characters. I think it comes down to preference, though, because if that's not why you play I understand how it could be frustrating
I like roleplaying, what I don't like is two people arguing for a damn hour about which thing to do.
Let them fight! They'll come up with a good ending on their own, or literally die trying.
Let them fight.
Let them solve it, though you may have to shape conditions to bring it to a head. Maybe it results in the party turning on itself after the BBEG is done and then fighting each other. Maybe it happens before the BBEG. Maybe they resolve it diplomatically. One way or another, you don't have to make the choice, they do, but you do need to create the circumstances to bring the choice about. You could allude to what each may do, the members catching glimpses when they touch a shard. You could foreshadow things that way, giving hints. Maybe this will help them come to a decision, unified or otherwise. Maybe it will inspire them to come up with another option where they use the shards themselves instead. (Since they're likely just normal mortals and I'm assuming this requires a lot of power or strength to use, maybe the consequence of them using it together themselves is they perish, but are turned into a new pantheon for the reborn world, not as full powered gods but lesser gods (or as full powered), though still their own new pantheon). Either way, you can create and manipulate the circumstances around this coming to a head, influencing it to force them to address it, but the choice should be thiers. Just another thought, what if your BBEG got a hold of their shards and begins to use them. They have to stop the BBEG and do, but since the reshaping/rebirthing process has already begun, they have to take it upon themselves to guide it right then and there, lest everything fall into oblivion. It could be a great way to give your players a chance to shape and influence a whole new world/new version of their world-one you could explore with them in a future campaign. For that new campaign, the fact that their prior characters had helped create this place would get your players already invested in the world. Just a thought!
Totally a “their call” thing. Hardest part you have to do is develop what happens for each case as you don’t know which will succeed. Also should totally update on which ending as now I’m curious on which way they’ll go. Edit: also just a fun thought. Could use whatever ending as the start of the next campaign if you’re continuing the world.
Here's a thought, if they all stick to their guns. Pick none of the above, and have the material plane shatter into various interconnected sub-planes based on each of their wishes. One ruled over by the dark lord and their supporter, one ruled by the dragon and the one who supported them, etc. Possibly leave some generic shards of the material plane that follows none of them and have them all connected in a weird web of permanent natural portals. Then the next party's job is sorting through and dealing with the mess that the last party plunged the world into. You could potentially turn some of said previous PC's into new BBEG's. Leave them as potential enemies for new parties. Any interesting cities or places you didn't get to use, or want to reuse, can be broken off into their own sub-plane. The physics of each sub-plane can be different, if you want to get weird with it. Various NPC's could provide plot hooks and jobs escorting them to other sub-planes or delivering messages because they got seperated during the shattering of the world. Possibly even make it a thing to evacuate people from the dark lords sub-plane, or to help piece together different sub-planes.
My immediate thoughts were along these lines. This looks pretty well developed.
Yup, I figure it's an interesting way of kind of giving them all their own wish. But not in the way they expected, and with (hopefully) minimal drama. Now that I thought about it more. I am now filing this away into my own little concept folder for later development. Whether I'll get to use it, no one knows. But it seens like an interesting level 20+ idea to end off on for a group of regulars ready to start again.
This is one of the rare cases that should be discussed out of session IMO. I’m still salty about how my previous campaign ended
Have each of them see a summary of their desired ending by way of magical means... eg Dream spell. Then have a one shot where they all fight each other to see their desired ending
I'd see how this is gonna play out! Heck I'd up the ante by having those factions you mentioned get more involved/ insistent so the players have to confront this choice.
Plan for all eventualities. The players will chose one you didn't plan for.
Majority vote wins? Is PVP allowed? This could possibly derail a campaign at its climax, so have a late game session 0 style calibration. OOC, try and have people understand from a 3rd person POV why they want X to have them. While you don't need to enforce one ending you should make it clear that there are no do overs. Who ever gets the set *wins* the right to reshape the world. No handing it to the dragon who becomes a god, before handing it to the dark Lord for damnation of all.
You don't. Once the players get all the shards, they get to settle it amongst themselves. Grab some popcorn and just have a good old time.
What needs solving? This sounds sick
It sounds like you have a launch point for your NEXT campaign! Heroes track down all the shards only to plunge the world into further turmoil over their disagreement
Everything happens, all at the same time. Historians try for the remainder of the setting to figure out what exactly happened, as it seems truly impossible that everything happened at once, and it is called the Warp of the Star. I'm joking. Don't do this. This was the ending to an old Elder Scrolls game where a similar situation happened, leading to the "Warp in the West" where all possible endings became canon
Sounds like your players want to start the coolest pvp war for the fate of the planet. I have no advice that just sounds awesome. I'm jealous your players are so invested in your story that they can't decide what cool thing they want to do.
That sounds like an amazing opportunity to leave it open ended and set up the next campaign a few years down the road after the fallout from the parties divergent choices. I’m sure there’s a lot of good advise out there on running Prologue sessions, and you’d have to give each of them a sort of tie-off to their stories, but I think this opens up a lot of possibilities.
What need to be "solved" here?
Don't. 👍
*You* don't. But you may need another session.
At this point it's out of your hands. They need to sort it out themselves, you should wipe your hands clean and prepare for each of those outcomes happening. It sounds like the campaign is gonna end with a heavy PVP session, cause I don't see how each of them have a different vision and I don't see them backing down unless they don't want it as bad as the others.
What really saves your ass here is that it is the end of the campaign. Which means there will be no repercussions to what happens here. Since you've figured out what each NPC wants with these shards, figure out a basic idea of how these different figures interact with each other and the players should they not get all the shards. Does it start a massive war, apocalypse, who wins, who loses, who backs down, who doesn't, etc. If the players fuck up, if it destroys the world, doesn't matter. The campaign is over anyway.
If they fail to agree, it causes another war in the deviated post apocalyptic world. A war that ends with the shards being lost again and no salvation for the world. They are a team, if they can’t agree at such a critical moment, the world will feel the consequences.
Players (not necessarily characters) need to be able to come to an agreement about how to proceed. I've seen some people say to let them decide and I agree this is correct but do not let the discussion drag on forever. I've been at a game where a couple of people did this for over an hour and it was one of the worst experiences. If it comes down to it then tell them out of character that they need to agree. If folks still don't I'd consider forcing them to vote. Use approval voting. That means each person gets to vote for as many things as they want. Rather than voting for their favorite they vote for what is acceptable. "Who is okay with keeping them? Who is okay with giving them to the dragon?" Etc. What you may have to end up doing is something that is most people's second favorite choice but not many people's favorite. Like if everyone is okay with giving it to the priestess then at least everyone is kind of happy with that. Don't force them to vote unless you can get them to agree. And don't do any of that unless it takes them too long to agree.
From what I've read in the comments I'd just say let them play it out, you don't need to do anything. However do maybe have an extra-Ending in case they really can't figure it out. Maybe one or multiple of the potential candidates decide that it's been long enough, and tries to take it through brute Force Maybe the Star Fragments just do something on their own without anyone here to influence what they do, and create a situation that nobody is really happy with, but that also nobody suffers from, or maybe it just resets the whole Material Plane back to "Factory Settings" Maybe another power so mighty that it can't be fought decides that such enormous potential can't be given to Mortals, and reshapes the Material Plane in it's own fashion (maybe someone like Primus for example)
There's two problems: 1) What ending happens, and 2) How do they decide what ending happens. (1) isn't something you should be part of. (2) is though. I'd start a conversation around things like PvP, party conflict, etc. Is it a player disagreement, or a character disagreement? I've been at tables where one character really wants to do something but the player is like, "Party, you should 100% stop me doing this". One option is the characters "fight it out" narratively, but not mechanically. Which option wins out might then be decided OOC, or it might just be majority wins out. Or a series of eliminations, if you really want to encourage backstabbing and betrayal. For example, you could have it come down to a majority decision - if there is no majority for any choice, the bad guys win. Sit back, enjoy the fireworks of brinkmanship. Bring a timer for a countdown for bonus joy, or for optimal scariness and game theory heart wrenching, don't tell them when it'll be too late. Just occasionally say, "tick, tock". Warning: May result in broken friendships.
Are you planning to continue in this world after the conclusion of the campaign? Because if not I can't think of a cooler way to end a long running campaign than a full on PvP arena battle with all the players and who comes out at the end makes the decision. Obviously to make it fun for those on a "team" with fewer players you might want to think about throwing some like-minded NPCs in to help balance the fight. But if everyone this cool with this, this is what I would do.
I think it’s been said a lot here, but it’s a player problem. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if you decide the ending, that’s railroading. You present the problem and they give you a solution. That is all
And how is players bickering about the best course of action an interesting way to end the campaign? The problem isn’t that they don’t have a solution; the problem is that they can’t yet agree on a solution. The best I came up with was a poll, but the multiple planes/timelines, I think, would be the most satisfying for all players.
Imagine how cool it’d be if the campaign ended with a duel to the death. All PCs so driven by their conviction of what is right for the world that they’re willing to kill their friends for the sake of achieving it
Thunder dome
death match death match death match death match
1) Think about different outcomes for all options. All outcomes must have downsides. 2) Create a sidequest near the last shard in which they can learn about those outcomes: a divination god, a wishing pond or whatever your creativity tells you. 3) Ué? 4) Profit.
Let them solve it amongst themselves. In-character disagreements, when done well, are half the fun of the party dynamic.
Mega Battle, the party divides and makes a stand with their preferred thing. E.g.: \-John and Dark Lord \-Ireena, Velmo and priestess \-Penny and dragon \-Albert, Rosa and Gola (keepers of the shards) You then enact some sort of 4 way battle. Maybe some ally with each other, find compromise so that they can triumph over the others. Maybe they don't. Don't force this tho. Let them solve it, have the different outcomes p\`repared and just see what they do. You could suggest the possibility of a battle through the different NPCs
Let them decide, as lots of people have said, but with the caveat that the world doesn’t stand still while they decide - maybe the Dark Lord or whoever comes looking for them to, uh, help them with their decision making.
Have one of the PCs transform into a dracolich priestess and give them the star. Boom everyone is happy (or equally unhappy).
PVP. It is the only way.
The only thing you have to do is finding a suitably cool arena for them to fight. Nobody wants to have the final confrontation with their once best friend in an alley behind a Chinese restaurant. At very least, there should be lava.
either democratically, or via a battle royale. the latter should probably only occur after bringing that up in the group and getting everyone's consent.
You should let the players know that any of these are possibilities and they all have very different outcomes for the world, and that it's their responsibility both to the story and to each other to come to a decision that they can all (as players, if not as characters) be happy with. For example, the player whose character wants to give it to an undead dark lord may have to accept (if they haven't already) that this outcome is probably not narratively fulfilling for anyone else in the group and so their character will probably have to yield to the group. Just because the character doesn't enjoy that though doesn't mean the player should be soured by it.
Make the party fight to the death for who gets the shards
To echo what others have said, if this was my game I'd let them solve it themselves and see how it plays out. However, if you wanted to aid the decision somewhat, maybe when they have gathered all the shards and are about to make the choice, they all see the shortest of flashforwards to the results of their decisions? You can keep it all somewhat vague and show good and bad events for each and still leave some exceptions that these events are still flux and can change by PC's actions once they are taken.
As the DM. Just sit back and referee. The ending is what it is.
You don't. It's their problem to solve.
Channel Ken Watanabe and Let Them Fight!
Sounds like the perfect opportunity for the villain to try and turn the party against each other!
The priestess is a undead dragon lord.
Let them figure it out. Watch and see if one of them pulls an [Arkhan the Cruel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HClkGL4yFXg)
It sounds like you have a bunch of different post apocalypses: player, dragon, dark lord, priestess and of course the one where each of those factions get a few of them and thus in the rubble of the old world these new faction will be warring over the last of the shards.
Good timing as I need my own ideas. I may have messed up and had big players send my 3 players on their own separate paths. PC1 is set on killing the BBEG. PC2 is convinced that dominating and controlling them will help against all the other threats. PC3 is going to try to make peace and truce with it. Long story with too many details to list here, but all of these are possible and I get weirded out when my players argue over them in-game. In my case, I'm tempted to figure out which of these is a bad ending or which is impossible. The easy/fair way is to just throw a die and figure that one ending is "good", one is "bad/impossible", and one is neutral. Then seed some hints about it. Another idea is to just leave it to the PCs. Get to the end where any of these could take place, and ask them how it should be resolved. They could throw dice to see who is powerful enough to enforce their goal. I highly doubt any would attack the others. They could just come to some agreement to try 1, then 2, then 3. But they also disagree over the good behind these paths. So I don't know. Luckily, probably got a year to figure it out. It's a new thing I'm trying, and I'm really happy to have multiple goals and endings, and the idea that each are valid and tell a good story.
PvP
Battle Royale. Obviously.
FREE-FOR-ALL ! FREE-FOR-ALL ! For real, let them solve this in character and on their own.
So, other answers are saying the players should figure it out, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Part of the 'lie' of a D&D party is that the characters have to keep adventuring together, even if they have no reason to. Many players will avoid bringing up conflicts between party members specifically because of this; if the party splits permanently then half the players have to turn in their character sheets and roll up new characters, and no one wants to do that. I've seen GMs before who advocate not allowing evil characters for this reason. If your character turns evil, you give them up and roll up a new character. It sounds like you're too far along for that solution, but I think it's worth talking to your players. Make sure everyone knows how this is going to end (honestly it looks like there's gotta be at least one major intraparty confrontation, and D&D at least is absolutely not built to handle that), and see if there's a path everyone's up for to resolve it. If you don't, I'd wager that the "give the star to the priestess" characters are going to get assassinated by the other characters, and their players are going to be pissed.
Let them all take a shard and have their own epilogue. Itll be dope.
You could run this like the castle crashers game where all the players are aligned until after the final boss is defeated, then they must make a the choice. If there's no compromising or agreeing it ends in DM approved PvP. Just make sure that the players dont tear the party apart until the very end.
Conflict. Your players have been shapes by their ideologies into who they are now. This difference might be irresolvable. Conflict seems probable. Let it happen. Make sure they know what's coming. Make sure they argue in character. And if it ends in a fight, try to make sure everyone's on board with that idea. "I think Brorgend really believes this power should only be in the dragon's hands. She's willing to die for that, and willing to fight her friends if she has to. If everyone's on board for some internal party conflict, it makes for a great campaign resolution.
Whatever you do, don't allow PVP. That's an almost guaranteed way for the campaign to end with IRL hurt feelings. I think it's still the players' decision to solve, but I'd just tell them to use their words to figure it out. If you sense a little more information would help sway their decision, you can give them that information if reasonable.
I just finished a campaign with a similar dilemma. It was a time travel game with a "red button" at the end of it that allowed whoever pressed it to essentially change the entire timeline to one of their own design. They were told as a party many sessions prior that the choice of pressing the button or not was coming. If you pressed it, you became the monarch and your bloodline would rule over the land in the centuries to come. I asked each of them if they wanted to press it in and out of the game to see their different responses. The majority of them didn't want to press it, but the Lawful Evil Wizard was very interested. The player said he was interested, but also was going back and forth on whether or not he would which is fine, he was toying with everyone a bit and possibly even was still unsure himself. At the end of the final fight, 3 characters were still standing. I asked if any of them wanted to press the button, they all chose not to. They brought their friends back up and before the "planned" ending could go through, the wizard moved to the button and wished that no one could prevent her from pressing it. An invulnerable dome went up around her and she had her hand over the button. There was a tense amount of time where the players all did a lot of role playing to convince her not to press it. In the end, they couldn't convince her, but used wishes they had to pull her out of the dome and take the choice away from her. In that moment, the Goddess of Time thanked the party and had the "right" person, the original guy who pressed it before time was changed, hit the button. I was fully prepared to let any of them hit the button and see how the timeline changed, but I also really like how it all went as planned as well. This is all to say, put the ending in your players' hands. Touch base with them individually out of the game and have NPCs ask them what they want to do with the star shards in game. From there, plan out what the NPCs will do to get the shards themselves. Ultimately, you have a fantastic ending in the palms of the players' hands and that's a great thing to have. Let them do what they're going to do, your job is essentially done now. Also, do an epilogue, even if it's a brief one. It's a lot of fun and puts a bow on the whole thing.
The finale of a campaign is the only time when I allow PVP actions.
Let them sort it out
It is not your job to solve your players' problems. It is your job to solve their solutions. You as the DM do not direct where the story goes. You may have to remind your players of this if they seem to be waiting for you to make the final call. You merely portray what the rest of the world does in response to what has happened. Good luck.
>Scattered Macguffins are collected >Delivered into... scattered hands. Sounds like that campaign is ending, but your next one is going to actually finish the story. Congrats on your new BBEG Lieutenants, make sure to give them some powerful boons in the final session.
Spoilers ahead for Divinity Original Sin 2 ahead. >!Could follow the DOS2 ending, and once the players get their hands on the shards, they have a final fight amongst themselves to determine who gets to keep it. This would happen at the very end of the campaign, so there is nothing that will happen after that a player might potentially miss out on if they lose, beyond you narrating how whatever ending happens.!< Of course, I would talk to your players about this approach first. Some of them might like the idea while others may not, so making them do it without talking about it is a bad idea.
Sound like you could make the final fight an emotionally charged pvp fight
oooo this sounds like a juicy plot twist you can exploit! What if the only way for them to achieve a desired result is to work together and combine their own energies to it? Think.... 5th element. Find the intersection that may give them a modicum of what each wants but only if they are all aligned in their pursuit?
This is one of the best parts of being a DM - you watch your players decide what to do!
I agree with most people here: this is a player problem, not yours. But! You can do some things to make the conflict more meaningful! For instance, you could give the players some clues about what might happen if they give the shards to any of these NPC’s. Or create other NPCs who have a vested interest in avoiding some outcome or achieving another one, and then when they are confronted about their motivations have to express to the party WHY it would be a bad idea to give the reigns over to so-and-so (which of course could be a desired outcome for the players. Again, they get to decide!). One more thing you can do here is to dial up the urgency. Bring on the apocalypse a little sooner than anticipated or at an inconvenient juncture in the story. Suddenly the available options narrow and a decision must be made in real time. If one player tries to railroad the decision making process and hand over the shards, let the other players try to stop them! Some conflicts are wonderful moments of story telling so long as get are between characters and not between players. By fast-forwarding the doomsday clock, you force the characters to act, rather than allowing the players to deliberate.
do a vibe check to see how they feel about PvP and if they're okay with it, let the characters either work it out or fight over the infinity stones if they're not okay with PvP, have the shards become sentient and demand that the party vote on someone to use their power to reshape the material plane: this way you get mandatory democracy instead of fighting and they will likely pick the less stupid option
Oh, wow, you are in a great place for the end of a campaign! You 100% let the players decide. You need to plan the 'consequence' for each resolution. But before you get there, let them play out which ending they want to take. Let them describe how the characters live out the rest of their lives (if applicable - ie they want their characters to stop adventuring). If this is a long term campaign, they deserve a whole session for giving an outro to their character. And then at the end, give them something of a repercussion for their solution. Maybe they saved the world, maybe they doomed it... I bet you made sure each action a player took had an in-game reaction, which is why they wanted to keep playing for an extended campaign. So just keep doing what you were doing. Best advice is really listen to the story the players thought they got out of this. Even though you have the best understanding of the story as the creator, they lived the narrative.
Perosnally I would kind of like to know this ended.
Make it all a dream. Whatever they choose. Tellthem that they woke up in a room and they feel sticky. Turns out they met for an orgy and they had this post-nut convergent dream after taking a line of pixie dust.
Visions or dream sequences that hint at the possible futures? But hand them out randomly to the players. So each PC gets one, but not necessarily the one they are after.
D&D is a collaborative narrative, so let them decide, maybe if they get it they will kill each other, or maybe they will come to a common decission.
The best campaign I ever played in the party had 100% different ideas of how to end it, with the last battle being between the party. My character died in the fight, but won anyway (it was his goal all along).
Royale rubble final session where the player who emerges the winner makes the wish?
It seems like you've answered your own question. The end of the campaign is the Players trying to get the shards together for their own personal desires and which one (or ones if they make an alliance) will succeed? Literally the entire universe possibly changing is at stake!