|
Yet another question: At the moment I'm struggling with the hook to get my players interested and into my Prison City. It's the first adventure of this campaign and I want to do things right. My DMing is very rusty, and I've had a tendency to rely on far too much scripting in the past. So I'm doing what I can to avoid railroading things as much as possible. However, I know my tendencies, so I'm second guessing my ideas. Here's my basic plot, long-winded version: My initial villain is the King's nephew. His goal is to assassinate his cousin, the Prince, so he can become heir to the throne. Conveniently, he is warden of the Prison City, which the Prince is coming to inspect in a few weeks time. The villain is allied with death cultists in the Prison City, who have been working feverishly to raise a small army of the undead to assault the Prince on his inspection. Their work is being hampered by various gangs, monsters, and other unsavory elements that make up the other citizen-inmates. This is where the players come in. The Nephew, being short of allies save the cultists, hires (or bargains with, more on this in a bit) the players to remove those groups who are the biggest obstacles. As an example of my ideas for obstacles, there's a large boneyard around an old, abandoned temple somewhere in the city. A particularly rough gang of prisoners are using it as their hideout, and the cultists need them out of the way to gain access to all those plum corpses. Our villain decides that the players make a perfect candidate for this mission - all the better to risk them than his convict cultists, of whom he needs all or most to remain intact. My problem at the moment is figuring out how the Nephew and the players come together. The most obvious is that they're all prisoners (fairly or unfairly, up to them as far as I'm concerned) and fellow gang members to begin with. Our villain then bargains with them - work for me and I set you free. The second option I've considered is that they're not prisoners at all at the beginning. At the very beginning of the first session they're all in a tavern in the small support town set near the prisons walls. Only a few of them know each other, and all of them are here because their collective circumstances simply have them "passing through." Almost immediately, a drunk guardsman takes up a grudge with one of the players and a tavern brawl ensues. The tavern clears out, a few guardsmen end up dead, and the players have blood on their hands. Guardsmen rush in to take control of the situation and the party is off to prison, but not before the villain makes a deal with them. Work for me and I let you go, don't and I'll make your life even more painful than it has already become. I like the first option because it makes the the "how did we come together" question easy, and it presents a decent introductory hook. I dislike the first option because it robs them of some of their background, and takes away a little bit of design control. I like the second option because it keeps the players in control of their characters. They're all reacting to situations and not being told what they are and how they ended up in a bad situation. I dislike this option because there are plenty of "what ifs" that I'm not sure how to answer and might end up with me doing a lot of prep for nothing. They could get away, after all. I'm also worried that it's pretty convoluted... Those are my ideas. Any thought and advice would be appreciated. As you might see, I have a tendency to over-think some things  .
Tercio fucked around with this message at 05:17 on May 4, 2010 |
#
?
May 4, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Do the first option. I don't think it robs them too much--they can be anything they want, adventurer or otherwise, they just start without stuff. Don't actually play out anything with them not having equipment, though, it's painfully unfun in my experience. The second option is worse in a railroady way. I mean, granted, starting the game with "hey you're working for me bros" is always railroady, but to say to yourself from the start that... 1. They will get in a fight and 2. They will inadvertently murder the poo poo out of some guards ...is pretty railroady. You don't know if the players would be that careless with lethal damage or even interested in a bar brawl, and you'd be robbing them of in-game choices if you did that. With your first option, you're just taking away background poo poo, and if they can't tack on "imprisoned for x by the crown" then gently caress 'em. The first option is also more "believable," if you follow me--yeah, sure, this Warden would be able to put together a willing team from his roster of skilled ex-adventurer convicts, no prob. The second option, on the other hand, feels forced.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
What about option three: The villain just tricks them? "Hey [wandering bad of good guy adventurers] there is a band of thugs assembling in a boneyard in Prison City who are building their strength to stage an escape, I need some nice adventurers to sneak in there and stop them!" Later... "Wow! You managed to stop those nasty dudes. Thank the gods! But, oh no, there's some other group called the [other enemies of the cultists] Gang that are also threatening to escape, please stop them!" Later, after the PCs have knocked off all the cult's enemies and are ready to leave the city and collect their reward. "Hah, you fools! You fell for my clever plan! I wasn't a good guy warden at all, turns out I was an evil mastermind this whole time. I just used you to knock off the opponents of my allies, [evil cult], which are even at this very moment finishing off Prince Goodguy's royal guard. He will soon join you in this pit of despair because even though I should do the smart thing and just kill him, I am believe it is unacceptable for peons to shed noble blood, hence I will simply exile him into Prison City and pretend he's dead instead of outright killing him." ---------- This really seems like the perfect setup. The players aren't at all railroaded into the city, they are instead fooled into going by the seemingly honest and nice warden. Later, the betrayal ought to make for some good drama, and having the Prince tossed in their with them ought to make for some good ol' "Escape from New York" style action as the players work to recover the Prince, escape, and return with him to capitol to expose the traitor.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 06:25
|
|
|
I just assumed the villain was tricking them.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 06:28
|
|
|
The Warden is going to trick them, in the end. Or he will if they don't figure him out first. I've given this some thought. What about this for a hook, instead: We're in the same Tavern mentioned in option two above. The players meet one another and bond over food, ale, and personal stories. After a raucous night of drinking, and just as they're being forced out after last call, one of the players finds an unaddressed envelope on the floor, sealed with the warden's emblem. Some messenger has stepped in for a few drinks, perhaps had more than he should, and carelessly dropped his charge... I could imagine the players simply opening it and reading it; or they might take it back to the Warden's Headquarters for the sake of money, altruism, or just to get noticed. What's inside are the Warden's worries over the Prince's visit in the coming weeks, and his concerns at being short on guardsmen. For whom it was intended it does not say, and the letter is only address to a set of initials. It outlines a few of the problems he needs taken care of inside the prison, a few other dangers to look out for, and makes an offer of substantial compensation and recognition for proof of tasks completed. They could still visit the Warden to take on the job, or they could pursue it on their own should they wish. Either way they'll pick up clues during each adventure that things aren't as they seem inside the walls or outside them either. That feels a little less railroady. Still too standard, perhaps. Thoughts? I really appreciate all your advice, by the way. Tercio fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
Whybird posted:No, this is a good idea. My advice with any city in an RPG is that the physical geography less important than the political geography: you need to know who's in charge and what they're like. This, exactly. I've ran a lot of Buffy games, which are inherently urban (well, suburban, but close enough). I never once mapped out any of the towns. It was far more important to have an idea of the neighborhoods and what might be located inside them. It was also more event and character driven - what matters is the Slayer is having a showdown with the popular kid who is secretly a werewolf, and matters less if this is happening in front of the high school or the coffee shop or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Who are the PCs? You've said lots about what is going on, but we know nothing about your heroes. If we know what motivates them it should be pretty easy to give them a reason to get into the prison city. Or if you're starting with fresh characters, pitch it to them and let them decide. At generation, simply say 'you've entered the prison city on a mission to stop group X upon the orders of the King's Nephew. Why have you agreed to work for the King's Nephew?' I sort of like the barfight scenario if done right. First, you must be willing to accept that they might blow off the insults and not start a barfight. It could happen, and have a backup plan. Second, when you pull out the King's Nephew, if you can play it off like their random violence derailed the gently caress out of your game and this is some NPC you pulled out your rear end to save their bacon, so much the better. Could come off really cool. And after all, having bar patrons insult PCs is almost certain to result in violence no matter what system. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
I like it too! I love starting off a session with an initiative roll.  However, I've really become enamored with my letter idea. Here's a wordy version of my hook. Sorry if some of this is a rehash: We're in a Tavern on the outskirts of the prison city. It's a crowded night, and the players meet one another by chance, only because they have to sit at the same table together. They bond over food,ale, and stories of past deeds. After a raucous night of drinking, and just as they're being forced out after last call, one of the players finds an addressed envelope on the floor, sealed with the warden's emblem. Some messenger has stepped in for a few drinks, perhaps had more than he should, and carelessly dropped his charge... I could imagine the players simply opening it and reading it; or they might take it back to the Warden's Headquarters for the sake of money, altruism, or just to get noticed. If they try to take it to whom it's addressed they find that he has disappeared. His personal effects are gone, and his companions do not know where he has gone. What's inside the letter are the Warden's worries over the Prince's visit in the coming weeks, and his concerns at being short on guardsmen. It offers thanks for previous success and outlines a few of the problems he needs taken care of inside the prison, a few other dangers to look out for, some rumors of valuables to be found on the inside, and a final offer of substantial compensation and royal recognition for proof of tasks completed. There are a lot of things the players could do with this. Following up on the addressee leads to a discovery of a quick, fearful exit out of town. They could visit the Warden, deliver the unopened letter, and as a consequence be offered the job. They could crack open the letter and either visit the Warden or simply pursue some of his tasks on their own should they wish. Whatever they end up doing they'll have opportunity to pick up clues during each adventure that things aren't as they seem inside the walls or outside them either. Each path will enable me to plant hints about our villains true goals, and the unsavory elements he's working with. The original addressee has figured out what's up and has left town, afraid for his life. If the players figure this out too late, the prince dies, and it's partly their fault. The Warden, now heir to the throne, reveals himself and leaves the heroes on the inside. The players could figure it out in the nick of time and try to rescue the Prince during his inspection, or in the midst of the assault upon him. The players could figure it out early, and work to thwart the Warden's plans before they can begin. I like this idea because it leaves the players with many choices and doesn't require me to do a wild amount of planning. There are many different roads to take here. Tercio fucked around with this message at 18:02 on May 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I like what your idea has become, I almost want to steal that scenario and run it myself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Do you guys have any ideas for a walled town defense scenario? In my next game session, my players will be helping a town defend itself against a group of roughly 300 hobgoblins/goblins/gnolls with the occasional heavy like an ogre or troll thrown in for living siege machinery. The first part of the encounter is setting up defenses, that's a pretty straightforward skill challenge, but I didn't want the second half to be just straight combat. The town has walls surrounding it on 3/4s with a large lake at the other 1/4th. The town also has a standing constabulary as well as a rallyable militia. I could just have them fight some focused skirmishes against the heavier combatants and then just narrate the rest. But I don't want to take too much out of the hands of the players. At the very least I want to give them something out of the ordinary to work with, maybe popping magical flares to mark targets for the archers on the wall to focus on.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Fitz posted:Do you guys have any ideas for a walled town defense scenario? In my next game session, my players will be helping a town defend itself against a group of roughly 300 hobgoblins/goblins/gnolls with the occasional heavy like an ogre or troll thrown in for living siege machinery. The first part of the encounter is setting up defenses, that's a pretty straightforward skill challenge, but I didn't want the second half to be just straight combat. The town has walls surrounding it on 3/4s with a large lake at the other 1/4th. The town also has a standing constabulary as well as a rallyable militia. I could just have them fight some focused skirmishes against the heavier combatants and then just narrate the rest. But I don't want to take too much out of the hands of the players. At the very least I want to give them something out of the ordinary to work with, maybe popping magical flares to mark targets for the archers on the wall to focus on. Let them order around the militia/guards, sending them after different targets at a time, i.e. Players have: Themselves One group of guards with bows One group of guards with swords and shields A pair of wizards A trio of clerics Three groups of militia Stat each of the groups of militia/guards/etc as monsters, and each group of enemies as a single monster. Any combat between militia/guards and monsters takes place as group fights (where each group acts as a single creature, with a "boss" monsters statted as a single creature as well), and have each fight that the players do take place as a real fight as normal.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
Fitz posted:Do you guys have any ideas for a walled town defense scenario? In my next game session, my players will be helping a town defend itself against a group of roughly 300 hobgoblins/goblins/gnolls with the occasional heavy like an ogre or troll thrown in for living siege machinery. The first part of the encounter is setting up defenses, that's a pretty straightforward skill challenge, but I didn't want the second half to be just straight combat. The town has walls surrounding it on 3/4s with a large lake at the other 1/4th. The town also has a standing constabulary as well as a rallyable militia. I could just have them fight some focused skirmishes against the heavier combatants and then just narrate the rest. But I don't want to take too much out of the hands of the players. At the very least I want to give them something out of the ordinary to work with, maybe popping magical flares to mark targets for the archers on the wall to focus on. I doubt your players want to handle the entire fight themselves. Set them up with a few key fights, and give them some opportunities to improve the odds of the NPCs. I think some interesting mid-siege challenges could be aiding some surrounded/disarmed militia, rescuing civilians from burning buildings, and defending the lake from a few invaders on boats or logs or something. Each of these, of course, should provide some benefit to the players, like one of the rescued civilians being a healer capable of treating some wounds (magically or otherwise). Having the siege contain a variety of dramatic events and skill-related challenges should make it much more interesting than a simple drawn out fight. Edit: If I were running something like this, I'd keep a general "success meter" in my head, tallying up how much the players are helping the town as a whole. Having the "Key Challenges" during the siege will help you and the players have a sense of how well they're doing. Green Intern fucked around with this message at 22:39 on May 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Fitz posted:The town also has a standing constabulary as well as a rallyable militia. I could just have them fight some focused skirmishes against the heavier combatants and then just narrate the rest. But I don't want to take too much out of the hands of the players. At the very least I want to give them something out of the ordinary to work with, maybe popping magical flares to mark targets for the archers on the wall to focus on. If you want to give your players a chance to try some new character builds and direct the battle entirely by themselves, check out Hard Boiled Armies. Essentially, you create army units just like you would a regular 4e character and change up just a few things to make it work. It even includes this: quote:nvasion! A fully-detailed military encounter, where the players take on the roles of city watch garrisons charged with defending their city against an invading force. Invasion! Includes five enemy armies for your players to repel, and a map of the city and its surroundings, broken into nine 8″x6″ printable map tiles. (let the players) stat up the militia and things using this, so like a group of pikemen might be great weapon Fighters or the crossbow force is a Ranger or whatever, maybe do it at a lower level to keep the options clear and keep your players from getting confused.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:I like it too! I love starting off a session with an initiative roll. There's another option, too. Have them wrongly arrested for no reason other than that they're there in the first place. Or put them on the road, have a group of bounty hunters "mis-identify them" and haul them in. Then you can have the bad guy show up and pretend to save the day "hey guys, I believe you, but I need evidence to get you out of here. I hear that these bandits here and maybe these other prison gangs here are planning on testifying to the false identity the courts believe, but if they were to "disappear" I think I could get you out of here. Then they can either go gung-ho, try to escape themselves (which, if they go that route, time their attempt with the attack on the Prince) or delve into the who's and whats of Prison City.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
TheAnomaly posted:There's another option, too. Have them wrongly arrested for no reason other than that they're there in the first place. Or put them on the road, have a group of bounty hunters "mis-identify them" and haul them in. Then you can have the bad guy show up and pretend to save the day "hey guys, I believe you, but I need evidence to get you out of here. I hear that these bandits here and maybe these other prison gangs here are planning on testifying to the false identity the courts believe, but if they were to "disappear" I think I could get you out of here. Then they can either go gung-ho, try to escape themselves (which, if they go that route, time their attempt with the attack on the Prince) or delve into the who's and whats of Prison City. That was basically the germ of my "busted after a bar fight" idea. The only problem with that is they have to end up captured. I've got to hope they either give up willingly, or make their opponents so overwhelming that they have no choice. And even then they could always try to run away, or just fight to the death. My other option is to just force it and declare them "captured" after a fight with the bounty hunters. Either way I'm manhandling them with the story, they're not participating in it so much as being well, railroaded. I could be wrong, of course. What is a good way to lightly script a party's capture?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:That was basically the germ of my "busted after a bar fight" idea. The only problem with that is they have to end up captured. I've got to hope they either give up willingly, or make their opponents so overwhelming that they have no choice. And even then they could always try to run away, or just fight to the death. My other option is to just force it and declare them "captured" after a fight with the bounty hunters. Either way I'm manhandling them with the story, they're not participating in it so much as being well, railroaded. If they run, you have a 'reason' for their bounty. Then you just spend a session or three extra having various groups hunting them down. You haven't planned this to level 30, have you?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
lighttigersoul posted:If they run, you have a 'reason' for their bounty. Then you just spend a session or three extra having various groups hunting them down. You haven't planned this to level 30, have you? No, I haven't. I could plan for that as well, certainly. I guess I was just trying not to over-plan. And it's always something I could just handle on the fly, which I need to get better at.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
For the town defense, if you want big, the hard boiled armies thing is a good suggestions, and if you're interested in some smaller encounters instead (or as well), there's a sequence of encounters in King of the Trollhaunt Warrens where trolls attack a town by lake and by land and the players are the defense. You could take from that as much or as little as you like. Since you're not interested in the whole adventure, you could probably get away with just reading the relevant pages a couple of times and/or making some notes, rather than buying the whole thing, assuming you can find somewhere to flip through it and write stuff down.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:No, I haven't. Why not just tell your players that the adventure will center around a prison city (provide some background about it) and advise them that the leader of the city needs "special investigators". You can let the players come up with how they were recruited and what they were doing in the city. Some of them might choose to be prisoners working for freedom, others might want to be mercenaries who want cash, maybe one will be a guard who's angered his superior and got placed on a "special assignment". They could be waiting in an antechamber to meet with the city's leader when the game starts. A lot of DMs get anxious about story-telling for the players, when the players are often happy to do it for you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:That was basically the germ of my "busted after a bar fight" idea. The only problem with that is they have to end up captured. I've got to hope they either give up willingly, or make their opponents so overwhelming that they have no choice. And even then they could always try to run away, or just fight to the death. My other option is to just force it and declare them "captured" after a fight with the bounty hunters. Either way I'm manhandling them with the story, they're not participating in it so much as being well, railroaded. Be extremely careful with this sort of story. I've seen several campaigns fall apart completely because the DM designed the story to hinge on this sort of thing. If you want to "mandate" that they get captured, have this happen offstage, before the game starts. Just tell the players that they got ambushed and brutally beaten, and they woke up tied up in the city. A representative from the leader arrived, freed them, and gave them back their equipment. Start the game there, with the representative offering the leader's "assistance" in getting out of the city and go from there. If you insist on playing out the bounty hunter attack, make sure you come up with some contingency plans! If they surrender, great. If they fight and win (or run away), give them evidence that leads back to the city and hope they investigate. If they fight and start losing, have the leader's "elite guard" or something, arrive and assist (telling the players that the hunters were escaped prisoners or something). Basically, no matter what you do, don't make the whole story depend on the players taking a specific action. For example, with the "letter on the bar floor" idea, they might not read it at all. Make sure you have some sort of idea of what to do if they just leave it on the floor or turn it in to the barman (hey, we found this, looks important, bye). Maybe the hunters could show up whether or not they read the letter, etc. Remember that the players are protagonists writing their own story, not characters in your movie. I played a game where the DM wanted us to get captured by an overwhelming force of drow, then forced to work for an underworld boss. It went totally awry, though. Two characters escaped, two got captured, and one character killed themselves (to avoid a presumed life of slavery and torture).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 07:34
|
|
|
Chernori posted:Why not just tell your players that the adventure will center around a prison city (provide some background about it) and advise them that the leader of the city needs "special investigators". You can let the players come up with how they were recruited and what they were doing in the city. Some of them might choose to be prisoners working for freedom, others might want to be mercenaries who want cash, maybe one will be a guard who's angered his superior and got placed on a "special assignment". They could be waiting in an antechamber to meet with the city's leader when the game starts. This is great advice, and something I should have come to on my own.  The players will have fun with that sort of beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
Thanks for all the ideas guys. What I think I will do is just set up a few set piece encounters while having a skill encounter also going. For example, say they need to get through the enemies' lines to get to an ogre who is pelting the wall with boulders, they'll have to make athletics acrobatics or stealth checks to get to the encounter, with failures resulting in a loss of healing surges, rather than actually running a combat between them and 30 goblins. Then during combat they can potentially do something to either attract the archers on the walls attention to a target or maybe call in mounted cavalry or something as sort of an encounter power for the fight. EDIT: What I'll also be doing is making rolls for the bad guys as a whole and the town, with bonuses to each depending on their success or failure on the skill challenge for setting up defenses and things they do while out in the field. Some examples, if they reinforce the gates, the town will get a bonus to its defense against a battering ram. Conversely, if the players haven't killed the ogres hurling boulders, then the baddies get a bonus to attacks against the town. Fitz fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
Well, here's my problem: my players are too great. We've been doing a cheesy, very light Spirit of The Century space opera/planetary fantasy campaign. It's not supposed to be all that hardcore, since two of five players are new to RPGs of any kind, and all five are new to the system. Nonetheless, they've been steamrolling anything I throw at them. I bear some blame for this, because I run heavily improvisational games, and for this game particularly, I've been letting some extremely rule-of-cool stuff go. But I always ask for criticisms, and the only one I've been getting is 'more challenge'. So far:
They keep coming up with extremely creative, internally consistent solutions, generally too hilarious to deny: but these solutions tend to resolve issues without much recourse to their particular skills. They're having fun, so it's not a big issue, but I want people to be feeling a little bit of danger or they're going to get bored. Currently the party's crashed on a jungle planet (quite possibly filled with space dinosaurs). So, TL:DR, how do I make my party feel threatened, challenged, etc.?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Mage Ham posted:Well, here's my problem: my players are too great. Let them do the cool things but try to come up with twists for it on the fly. Flying the bridge through magma tubes doesn't sound like the sort of thing that I could just saunter over and do. There would certainly be challenges in completing that successfully. Flying through magma tubes - they could be having to avoid having magma overwhelm the bridge's heat shields, using cocky piloting and/or having a techy character quickly rerouting power to where it's needed while shouting "She can't take another hit like that, cap'n! I can't hold 'er!" If they fail, you can have them crash right in front of the enemy and then they can do the intended battle. If they succeed, at least they'll have had to make difficult tests to do so. If they're doing cool cinematic poo poo to make the battles easier, either have the enemies get reinforcements or be more difficult, OR have the enemies do cool poo poo right back at them - see how they like fighting with a chandelier on their head.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
I'm working on taking a setting from A Touch of Evil, a board-game that is very popular with my group of gaming friends, and turning it into a series of RPG adventures using Wizards of the Coast's d20 modern system. For those not familiar with AToE, the board game is set in a town very similar to Sleepy Hollow, and the heroes are actively investigating the weird/creepy/evil poo poo that keeps happening in the town and the surrounding areas, and trying to stop it ASAP. I went back and forth with system choice, but I settled on this one because: 1. My prospective players are most familiar with d20 (read:4e) 2. The core book as well as 3 sourcebooks are available on the WotC website 3. I'm very familiar with running adventures under the 3.0/3.5 system, which d20Modern is very close to. Should I be looking at a system more suited to the era I'm planning to run? There is a d20 Past accessory (which I've ordered), but I'd like to hear if there are better options out there. Do I stick with a WotC product since it's somewhat familiar to my players? I've taken 14 characters from the board game and written up the 3 or 4 sentence backgrounds from the board game, which gives each character motive to be in the town, and motive to want to stop the evil guy(s) from taking over. The group I play with has little to no experience outside of 4e, and I don't want them to struggle with integration, or being able to work as a group. I've also planned to draw up first level stats for all the characters, since, again, I don't want the players to struggle with building a character in an unfamiliar system. Is this a really bad idea? Should I just let them come up with their own concepts/builds for their first foray into a non-fantasy setting? Also, does anyone have a resource I could lok into for running a Sleepy Hollow/Ven Helsing/Victorian Era game? I've had an abundance of Steampunk articles pop up through google, but that's not what I'm really looking for. I have a few ideas for the first adventure(s) that include the token Spectral Horseman being controlled by a Necromancer, and some intrigue involving the Town Elders. If anyone would like to help me with ideas on that, I'd be happy to dilvulge more in anoter post.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
D20 modern is a lovely system. What would work far better for what you are doing is the D20 CoC system. You'd have to get a hold of the book somehow, since there is no SRD for it. Coming up with concepts/builds is fine, but I would make it an option (i.e. "You guys can use one of these that I've created, or you can make your own") rather than force the players to use them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
I'm starting up a SWSE game with the idea that the players are recruited into the ISB but are pretty naive about the workings of the Empire beforehand, so they are private sector hackers, company directors, security personnel etc and get noticed by the Empire and thrown into the dirty side of Imperial tyranny. Any suggestions for how to keep the tone of the game as "ordinary people discovering the evil of the Empire from the inside"? I've got a few ideas for missions they'll carry out etc but some tips would be nice as it is a bit of an ambitious idea. I'm a huge star wars geek and have a fair bit of D20 experience but any suggestions on how to run SWSE would also be great as I've never played it before.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
I have AToE, and its a lot of fun. If I were to do it, I'd use Call of Cthulhu, BRP version. System mastery really isn't relevent, as BRP is about 100x simpler than anything d20. You have a % chance with each of your skills, roll that or under to succeed. There aren't really any feats or system mastery stuff to worry about. The core book has adjustment for three different eras, Modern, 1920s, and Gaslight (1890). The Gaslight should work just fine for that setting. I really can't imagine a group having much problem with CoC. There would probably be more of a struggle going from 4e to d20 Modern than to CoC.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Karandras posted:I'm starting up a SWSE game with the idea that the players are recruited into the ISB but are pretty naive about the workings of the Empire beforehand, so they are private sector hackers, company directors, security personnel etc and get noticed by the Empire and thrown into the dirty side of Imperial tyranny. Just try to show at least one example of repression every session. Start small at first, like with intrusive security screens and curfews, aliens being segregated, etc. Then escalate; the other day my group captured an Imperial convoy and I had the captain of an escort ship curse the surrendering crews for traitors and opened fire on the freighters. That's intermediate. Major stuff is slavery, using lethal force against peaceful protesters, show trials against dissenting planetary leaders. And of course at the mustache-twirling level (well represented in the films) you've got huge plots like the Death Star, ISB "false flag" operations designed to turn public opinion against "terrorist" Rebels. And there's genocide, depending on how much "poo poo just got real" you like in your Star Wars. And you probably already understand this as a matter of dramatic storytelling, but the other thing I'd suggest is be sure you make the characters complicit. It doesn't have to be knowing complicity. They can even think they're doing a real public service at first. But it should be more than just (for example) coming across classified files about the Death Star; have them take a part in designing or coordinating the construction crews for the thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Maddman posted:I have AToE, and its a lot of fun. If I were to do it, I'd use Call of Cthulhu, BRP version. System mastery really isn't relevent, as BRP is about 100x simpler than anything d20. You have a % chance with each of your skills, roll that or under to succeed. There aren't really any feats or system mastery stuff to worry about. The core book has adjustment for three different eras, Modern, 1920s, and Gaslight (1890). The Gaslight should work just fine for that setting. I just did some reading about BRP CoC, and while I personally like what I've read about it so far, I'm having doubts that the group I'll be introducing this to will have fun with a system like BRP. From what I've seen being a player with these guys, they love combat, having cinematic encounters, and honestly, leveling up. (Thanks WoW!) I'm hoping to ease them into a more investigative, role-playing focused game from what they play now - 4e; jumping from combat to combat and competing for most "DPS" and "kills". While I don't disagree that it'd be very easy to learn and introduce, I'm leaning towards d20 CoC for this game, or sticking with d20Modern/d20Past since the core is free, and I have experience in running that system. Does anyone have experience with d20 CoC? I ordered my copy over the weekend. EDIT: As a more general question, is there a resource (or a post in this thread) about how to ease players that compete for "DPS" and "kills" in 4e into something with more role-playing focus? Red Hood fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
I'm going to look past the archaic combat/roleplaying dichotomy stuff since I've posted plenty about it in other threads and it's far too common of a misguided belief to fix it every time Discuss what you think the issue is, ask them about their opinions, accept the fact that they might not want to change how they play. People can suggest systems all they want or give you tricks or whatever but this is the only piece of advice on the topic you actually need: talk to your players and tell them what you're thinking. Seriously. Just talk to them. Changing systems isn't going to fix things for you. Trying to trick people into a new playstyle isn't going to change anything. blah blah blah "roleplaying" doesn't help. Have a conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Have a conversation. Right! I've done this, and all the players have claimed they like to have 'roleplaying' encounters that don't involve combat, and enjoy interaction with NPC's and other players. When I've put forth my ideas and asked their opinions, I've received only praise and comments of excitement. However, since I've been playing with this group, I haven't seen any non-combat encounters from either of the two GMs that has run for this group. I didn't mean to say that combat and 'roleplaying' are mutually exclusive, and agree with Mikan that they can and do co-exist. Maybe I should rephrase my question: My group claims to be interested in, and enjoy non-combat encounters while they roleplay. However, from what I've witnessed, they treat the current game as a very in-depth miniatures combat game. Does anyone have any experience that will positively re-enforce 'role-playing' and solving encounters without drawing a sword?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
Gunfighter_IX posted:Maybe I should rephrase my question: Warhammer: Dark Heresy. Once they identify the evil xeno/mutant/chaos threat, they get to kill it and rack up points and compare kills to their hearts content, in game, with no repercussions or fear of being seen as sociopaths/psychopaths. ONCE they find the threat. Seriously, it's a great system for roll playing, and if they're only really used to standard adventurers are psychos in disguise then Dark Heresy blends the two pretty drat well.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
Gunfighter_IX posted:My group claims to be interested in, and enjoy non-combat encounters while they roleplay. However, from what I've witnessed, they treat the current game as a very in-depth miniatures combat game. Does anyone have any experience that will positively re-enforce 'role-playing' and solving encounters without drawing a sword? This we can do. There are other options, but what you're probably going to have to do is lead by example. The most effective way to do it is probably run a game for them. Let them know in advance what kind of game you're looking to run, what you're hoping to get out of it. That might not be enough though, even if people want to try a new kind of game there are still a lot of old habits to break. Get them involved in the campaign process. I'm going to bold this because it's the best way to get players invested. Get them involved in the campaign process. If they have a chance to mold parts of the campaign world, they'll feel more immersed and waaaay more interested in what's going on beyond combat. It's cool to check out Castle A or whatever but when the players are in Joe's ancestral family holdings, the one his grandfather constructed over twenty long years, the one you helped one of the players build, there's going to be a lot more interest. Reward the kind of behavior you're looking for. Make sure people know it's appreciated. Don't give them in game bonuses or anything just pay more attention to everyone's attempts to be in character and try to make it feel like a cool normal thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 05:24
|
|
|
Gunfighter_IX posted:Maybe I should rephrase my question: Noncombat encounters are just as exciting as combat ones. I think of combat and noncombat encounters as not being two different animals, they're all about conflicts. Conflicts make for interesting games, and are why newer gamers and GMs gravitate toward them - they're easy. There are some orcs that want you to die. You, the PCs, want to not die. Conflict! Here's my recommendations for getting more noncombat encounters - This is important - let it work! If you resist and call for death from a thousand skill checks for trying to talk your way past the guard or whatever, they are just going to pull steel and fight, because that works. - Figure out what their characters want or what they value. Set up a conflict that has to do with a character's goals or desires and the game suddenly gets very interesting. - Don't assume outcomes. When you set up a scene, don't decide ahead of time if it will be a fight or a talk or an argument or a race or whatever. Just set up some interesting pieces, introduce some conflicts, and see where the PCs take you. To be honest, from what I've heard d20 CoC isn't that much less lethal than BRP CoC. The way that game encourages noncombat resolution is that combat is not very effective. Most monsters can kill you in one or two hits, do damage to your sanity just for looking at it, and are not in any way 'balanced' proportional to the PCs. A far better option is to research, investigate, banish, or as a last resort ambush. The last thing you want in CoC is a stand up fight.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
Hey thread, how you doin'. My, my, Look at how big you've become! While I have a little bit more GMing experience, I'm still fairly new at the whole process. Lately, though, there's an idea in my head that's been brewing... I'm tempted to run a game with what I think is an interesting idea- the basic concept of it is that there are two opposing player sides, both working to meet their own set of objectives while directly and indirectly trying to block their opponents from achieving their own. Along the way, each side would have to make decisions on how to best achieve their goals, who to side with to achieve them, and what methods they should employ to make this possible. I'm tempted to do this Play-By-Post, but first there are a few things I'm wondering about... 1) Has this been done before? Did it work? Was it a complete and total train wreck? Please, let me know! 2) What rule-systems might work for this? The systems I am most familiar with right now are PDQ# and D&D 4E. The main concern I have with PDQ# is that it wouldn't harbor enough character development, while 4E I feel like the one side of characters might get bogged down in a tough battle while the other side might blaze their way through, causing me to throw whatever obstacle i can in their way to hold them back when they should be succeeding. While those two do have their upsides and downsides, I feel like I could learn a new system while I further flesh out this idea. 3) What's a good way to handle soldiers? The idea I'm going for is that the players wouldn't be acting by themselves, that is, they would at least have some nameless mercs to help them out. The problem with this, though, is that if they're too weak, the players might as well go on by themselves, as they'd just bog down combat. If they're too strong, they'd do all the fighting and it wouldn't be fun for anybody. There's a bunch more on my mind, but I just wanted to get three main concerns out of the way before this post became a whole bunch of words. Any help would be appreciated!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
Arrrthritis posted:Hey thread, how you doin'. My, my, Look at how big you've become! While I have a little bit more GMing experience, I'm still fairly new at the whole process. Lately, though, there's an idea in my head that's been brewing... So it probably can work, if things like ExtraNoise's History of the World games are any indication, but it requires first and foremost that everyone be on the same page. Larger/less fraternal/less mature groups are going to make this a disaster. So... I'll assume that's not the case for you. It may be a bad idea, but if you have a good group, I don't know why it wouldn't work (my experiences are based on a pretty bad group). The answer to #3 probably ties in to #2. Now, D&D 4e probably isn't the best system for this (yes, 4e owns and all that), just because PCs are handled differently from monsters. I don't have it handy, so one of the players more familiar with it can probably share reasons that the math doesn't work as well in PvP as it does when the PCs are up against monsters. PDQ# could do it pretty well, but it's way too linear in its rules to make it work long-term. I'm not sure what would be a good system, honestly. You do want something that can be played fast (PbP is slow), and you want something that can't be broken very easily. It depends on what you want to focus on. Are the PCs supposed to be generals? You could try a wargame sort of thing (or as simple as Risk with some tweaks) Are they meant to be heroes and their subordinates be small squads? Possibly something like PDQ# or Savage Worlds would be good. Are they meant to fight hordes of enemies head-on and win, Dynasty Warriors style? Well, I'm not sure what would be good for that one. Similarly, how crunchy you want the politics and social bits and so on... Are you looking for more of a wargame with added politics, or are you looking for a roleplaying game with added competitiveness, and, if the latter, how much empire-building is there beyond "hire mercs"?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
I was thinking at the start of the campaign each group of players would start as very low-tier recruits for their faction of choice, while by the end of the campaign the players would become second-in-commands/leaders/heroes of the faction they choose. So at the start they would have utter poo poo for allies, but nearing the end they would be giving commands to entire armies in hopes of sabotaging the other group of PCs and meeting their objectives, while being able to take on a few of their own. I guess it's hard for me to give a definite answer to that question because there is none- I want them to be random recruits working under the bureaucracy, but I also want them to be commanders of entire armies. I don't think players would be willing to change systems over the course of this adventure, but I do think that there are some systems out there flexible enough to handle this. As for empire building, I was thinking it would be kept to a minimal. I don't want the players sitting in one spot for too long, but I do want them to see the fruits of their labor. While directly building a fortress wouldn't be possible given their circumstances, they would have direct and indirect control over the fate of some villages/cities, characters, and even races that the realm may possess. I don't necessarily mind the slow-paced action of PbP, but I do want to have a system that won't get bogged down by unnecessary dice rolling or limiting a player from having a good time to having a really great time. Also, could you give me a link to a thread that failed, and the history of the world threads? And thanks, your help is much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Arrrthritis posted:I was thinking at the start of the campaign each group of players would start as very low-tier recruits for their faction of choice, while by the end of the campaign the players would become second-in-commands/leaders/heroes of the faction they choose. So at the start they would have utter poo poo for allies, but nearing the end they would be giving commands to entire armies in hopes of sabotaging the other group of PCs and meeting their objectives, while being able to take on a few of their own. Keep in mind, what if a player wants to be a traitor and say "Screw working up this chain, I'll hop over and be higher anyway"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Forer posted:Keep in mind, what if a player wants to be a traitor and say "Screw working up this chain, I'll hop over and be higher anyway" That's a very good, questionable situation, and I'm glad you got me thinking about it. While I do think that it should be an option for a player to go turncoat, I don't think that it should be as simple as going "Oh hey now you're good." The faction they're turning to might not accept them, the faction they betrayed might want to kill them, depending on their ranking. That isn't to say that they will end up still working for their starting faction. I think that there should be plenty of opportunities for the players to switch to another side, change their faction's philosophies, go rogue, or just say "gently caress this, We're starting our own faction, with blackjack, and hookers." I'm glad you brought that up, though. I'm going to have to think of a better solution if something really complicated happens- like both sides wanting to work together, or one player trying to sabotage the efforts of his/her side.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 04:33
|
|