|
In scenarios like this one, where there's a PC-centric episode that involves the other PCs, is it okay to sort of put the non-protagonist PCs on "your side"? That is, say something like: "Okay guys, next week is Jeff's one-shot, and he's going through this dreamscape of temptations. You guys are going to be projections of his psyche/idealized versions of yourself/shades from another realm/whatever. We want him to rally against the evil spirit in the end, but make it a challenge to get there. Have fun!" And of course to be fair you'd have similar games for each PC. Anyway, in reading My Lovely Horse's idea I find I really like it, and wonder if running single character-centric sessions should really just be a reversal of the player:DM ratio (that is, 1 PC & 5 DMs during these sessions). I think that would be kind of neat and refreshing. I think it would help the idea of the game being a collaborative story, too. Has anyone tried anything like this already? I won't be in a position to try it myself for a while. At any rate, I'm interested to hear how your idea pans out, MLH. Keep us updated.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Onion Knight posted:In scenarios like this one, where there's a PC-centric episode that involves the other PCs, is it okay to sort of put the non-protagonist PCs on "your side"? That is, say something like: this seems totally OK as long as your players think it sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:At any rate, I'm interested to hear how your idea pans out, MLH. Keep us updated. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Anyone have good tips on running episodic games, both in general and with alternating DMs? (i.e. most adventures are relatively self-contained across 1-2 sessions, with occasional reoccurring characters, themes, two-part episodes) I was part of a long running Star Wars episodic game (back in the days of the West End Games system) that was quite successful, so despite the difference in system what I would offer is this: a) have a "home base," someplace the characters return to after every adventure. It gives you a good starting point for each new adventure, and provides an excuse for why the DM's character isn't there (he's off in the mountains! He's training with his sensei!) This is aided by insuring the characters have other "jobs" or responsibilities they might be distracted with. You can then use those "jobs" as adventure hooks for when a character is gone. If Joe's character is off investigating the possibility of mining in nearby mountains (cause he's a miner) while Joe is DMing, then when Bob takes over, he can quickly launch into his mountain-set adventure with "you guys are helping Joe investigate a vein of ore..." b) establish "joint NPCs" that the characters can run into repeatedly. If multiple DMs can use the character of "Jolly the bartender" or Duke Smithson, it contributes to the feeling of a shared world. c) ask each other to follow up on things. If one DM introduces a world concept, villain, or adventure that you have a good idea for, just ask them to use it. Most of the time when we were playing, you could use other DM's villains or have follow up adventures just so long as you didn't kill them off or interfere with other plans the original DM might have. d) finally, this seems to work best if the characters have good reason to remain an adventuring party. They could be related, or close friends, or business partners. In other words, a good reason to remain at the "home base" and an easy way to pick things up when the adventure begins (i.e. "you guys are all hanging out at the pub when...")
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:In scenarios like this one, where there's a PC-centric episode that involves the other PCs, is it okay to sort of put the non-protagonist PCs on "your side"? That is, say something like: I think your instincts are right. As long as everyone's cool with it, and every player gets a chance to have a session that focuses on their character, it should work out well. Make sure to give everyone XP even if they aren't "really there" as in your scenario, because someone will surely be annoyed if you don't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
Been reading through the thread and really like the idea, starting to work on my campaign on my computer, is there really anything I can do to print it out or something or write it down? I want to organize my NPCs, etc;.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
Interstellar Owl posted:Been reading through the thread and really like the idea, starting to work on my campaign on my computer, is there really anything I can do to print it out or something or write it down? I want to organize my NPCs, etc;. You could get a 3-ring notebook with lots of tabs and dividers. I can't recommend much really, since I don't know what you're partial to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Anyone have good tips on running episodic games, both in general and with alternating DMs? (i.e. most adventures are relatively self-contained across 1-2 sessions, with occasional reoccurring characters, themes, two-part episodes) Way back when 3.5 was the game of the day, we did this by having a 'Mercenary Campaign' : Basically, you played as members of a mercenary group (We tinged it with poo poo from the Black Company, but that's just because we all love the first three books. We weren't playing in the setting or anything, but we liked saying 'The Company' and putting in in-jokes for shits and giggles. Unconnected.) So, any mission you had, automatic hook. If you wanted to do something personal, it's easy to imagine it because it's the main hook(s) and buddies they brought along. The GM's coming in and out, they just were on another mission or didn't get recruited or whatever. It worked pretty well. Added bonus of this, for group games, was that people could swap out a character for a game or two, just for a change of pace, GM's could run games that were one session of 10 sessions and it didn't matter, and, if someone wanted to, you only needed a flimsy excuse to have a pretty severe setting change. The downsides are basically that of any multi-GM game, of course. Cohesive narrative is next to impossible, having to deal with the spoils past GM's might have mistakenly given, etc. All in all, we thought it was a pretty good solution to the "We have three GM's, but all of them like to, surprise surprise, play as well"-problem, although there is probably a better one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
For my Star Wars game I got everyone a simple black clipboard and typed up some mission briefing notes and put them in there before each session. This keeps character sheets neat, stops people losing them and makes it easy for people to make and keep notes etc. https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATRQcI0AbDAjZGdjcHduN2hfMTNkdHZoamdkOA&hl=en&authkey=COmyxH0 Just little stuff like that has really helped my players feel connected to the world and it has a heap of administrative perks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 09:05
|
|
|
I figured with this being DM Centric It would be better to go here than the 4e thread. Due to a DM bailing on some of us I am stepping up to the plate and going to DM some new players through 4e... but I need a little breathing room to get my own stuff setup. Are the published adventures (e.g. KotSF) good enough to entertain them, and if so which ones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:I figured with this being DM Centric It would be better to go here than the 4e thread. Try the Chaos Scar stuff from Dungeon in preference to KotSF, I'd say. Much better design, and a bit of variety in enemies/challenges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
Alright then chaos scar it is, I assume I should tune the monsters up to the MM3 standards?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:Alright then chaos scar it is, I assume I should tune the monsters up to the MM3 standards? Depends on how your players have built their characters. MM3 monsters hit like a ton of bricks. They go down faster, but can trash a PC if your even a little hot on the dice. Also, unless they changed the solo math since the Dark Sun game day, Solos are still boring rear end fights. If you run a straight solo encounter, halve the HP and add an extra damage die to its attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
I haven't run one yet, but the buzz is that Essentials Solos are actually fun to fight against -- they didn't change the math so much as the mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:When they get to the city the PCs learn, ideally as part of a number of local news items, that a fireworks show is going to be held in a few days, a demonstration by a local mage showing off his craftsmanship. At some point, the PCs catch sight of one of her bodyguards involved in a transaction with the mage, which, upon investigation, shows that the sorceress is supplying the mage with the materials for his show. Around this time it should be communicated that the show is going to be held in the same part of the city, as close as is practically possible, to the building where the royal vault is. If they investigate the fireworks, they discover that the materials are unusually potent, more potent than would be needed for just a fireworks show. If set off, the explosions would appear to be intensely magical to something like Detect Magic. I just wanted to pop in an give an update of how this session went over. In one word, awesome. I sketched the basics of the heist, and the players filled in the details in a much more awesome way than I could've planned. I decided to have a dwarven guard detail of 6 dwarves stand guard outside of the vault while a pair of them would enter at certain times and take a walk around the vault, then go swap out for another pair. I let two of them be corrupted, and that took care of getting into the vault. It involved some unique tunneling, and getting a teleportation circle within the vault, ready to activate when the fireworks went off. The party found the teleportation circle, and one PC blew up the fireworks before the scheduled time(A nice use of a PC's Angel of Fire!), confusion ensued among the enemies while they scrambled to pull off the heist. The PC's entered the vault, stole the item they were trying to prevent being stolen(to prevent someone else taking it mid-fight), battled corrupt dwarves, a sorceress, and a barbarian. Party defeats almost all enemies, gets caught red handed with the stolen item and is forced to flee after the vault guards side with their corrupt dwarven buddy who was obviously beaten to a pulp guarding the vault! They teleport out of the vault and are now trying to find the best way to flee the dwarven city, or find a way to explain themselves. I ended the session with them teleporting back to the inn where the circle was, with an alarm being raised outside the inn. All in all, a really fun session and I have to try to come up with something for next time. This should be good! Maybe we'll finally get a chance to do skill challenges. EDIT: I meant to say thanks for the suggestions everyone gave. It made for an awesome session and helped me think outside the rulebooks. Yarrbossa fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Nov 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
OK, so I'm gearing up to GM 4E for the first time in a couple of months, and I'm busy converting my campaign world to the system. Mostly it's been pretty easy; the only thing that needs much work are adapting the race rules, and usually it's fine to swap some names or make little tweaks here and there. Gnomes presented an issue, though. Nothing in the PHBs quite represented them like I wanted, so I whipped up a homebrew race descriptor for them. It also gave me the opportunity to get an Int/Con race in there. I just wanted to get it checked by some more experienced folk for balance.Gnomes posted:Gnomes Any obvious issue or imbalance? Also, about how many race-specific feats would you say a new race needs at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
As written, the racial power is a little weak compared to the Elf or new Human accuracy powers, since those can be used in response to a potential miss without spending a "real" action and are less likely to be wasted since you can wait to activate them when they'll definitely be useful. Maybe something like this instead: Gnomish Scrutiny Encounter Minor Action * Close burst 5 Target: One enemy in burst Effect: Until the end of your next turn, any attack you make against the target's Fortitude, Reflex, or Will is instead made the lowest of the three defenses. This lets you target the worst non-AC defense for up to two rounds if you use this before your standard action during your turn. Getting to use it more than once should roughly balance out the fact that this power is "wasted" if you would've hit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
You could also recast it as an Encounter Free action triggered on a miss, with an Effect: line that reads "If this attack roll would hit any of the creature's other defenses, it targets the lowest of those defenses instead. Till the end of your next turn, your attacks against this creature target that defense." Which is actually pretty strong, come to think. Too strong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Very helpful, thank you. I wouldn't necessarily say that Gomi's suggested change is too powerful, but Whydirt's is probably a little closer to what I'm looking for, since it at least requires a moment of foresight in order to represent studying the opponent. Thanks to the both of you!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Yarrbossa posted:I just wanted to pop in an give an update of how this session went over. Glad to hear it went well! That sounds like a great complexification of the plot, letting the PCs inadvertently frame themselves. Was it their idea to take the object and "hold on to it" for safekeeping? I can see players thinking that up in the heat of the moment, and not considering the obvious downside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Kire posted:Glad to hear it went well! That sounds like a great complexification of the plot, letting the PCs inadvertently frame themselves. Was it their idea to take the object and "hold on to it" for safekeeping? I can see players thinking that up in the heat of the moment, and not considering the obvious downside. The bard thought it was a good idea to stop the enemies from grabbing it mid-fight. I made a note of it in my notebook and dropped it on them when they least expected it. "Stop thieves!" "But we didn't steal the....oh wait..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 02:05
|
|
|
I'm not too experienced with DnD at all, I DMed for the first time last friday and we all had a lot of fun, 2 of my players were new to RPGs in general and the other has been playing for years but they all said I did a good job  I'm looking at some of the official premade adventures, particularly Last Breaths of Ashenport (one of the new guys really likes cthulhu). Anything I should know about the official premade adventures that might make my job harder/easier?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
Some of the older adventures have the original monster rules, which generally have (slightly) too high defenses and hitpoints. One fix is to adjust the numbers, another is to end the encounter shortly after nothing but at-wills are left if victory is assured for the party. Be careful with monsters that stun or daze frequently, too; it's no fun to spend the encounter locked down and helpless. A perennial concern with pre-made adventures is the background information that the players may never see, and can sometimes restrict DMs into thinking only one solution will work. Be willing to throw stuff out the window to make it more fun for your players. You have a new group so you will likely be fine playing the adventures straight, but it's best to stop bad habits before they start. I've used them as a crutch for a long time with little ill effect, but they work much better as a framework that you dress up for the group's unique situation. DarkHorse fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Nov 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Cool, that's just enforcing stuff I was already thinking about. I've been reading threads in this forum off and on for a while now so I think I have a good idea of what makes a good DM. I've been using any and all monster stats and attacks as general guidelines rather than actual set numbers 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Will do, but it might be a while! I set the whole thing up today but learned my group most likely won't have time to get together again for the next 2-3 weeks. I'll be glad if we can even make it one more time this year - November/December is always a rough time for roleplaying for us. The Warlock: will encounter one of the main antagonist's henchmen and his party, and will have to resist the temptation to do the usual ambush/torture/kill routine for once. His bonus in the fight against the spirit will be a few areas where his Shadow Walk grants total concealment, and he can crit on a 19 for the encounter. The Fighter: will have to defend the party from an ambush and choose between running or standing up to the enemy (who hits like a truck). Passing condition is defending the party until either the enemy is dead or the fighter himself drops. As a reward he gets a +3 weapon for the boss fight that does radiant damage (I gave the spirit a pretty severe radiant vulnerability). The Bard: will have to race to a certain location within a short time limit and come across several situations on the way that demand her attention, passing condition would be tending towards a majority of those situations despite the time pressure. The reward is an additional bonus when she uses Song of Courage and her Majestic Word also granting a saving throw. The Wizard: will be transported back to when the warlock was just about to be expelled from the academy and will have to decide whether to stick with him and abandon her studies or stay at the academy. Passing condition is obviously staying with him, reward is an additional encounter power that does radiant damage and can push the enemy around. Also every character who passes gets a +2 bonus to saves against domination, which is one of the spirit's major tricks (hence also the additional saving throw for Majestic Word). And like I said the entire party will be present at everyone's trial to help or screw things up as they wish. I'm assuming 2 or 3 of them will pass; if all four pass they're probably going to mop the floor with the spirit but that's really fair enough. If no one passes, well, they'll still be mostly alright probably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 12:22
|
|
|
Whelp, TGD, I want your advice on if my idea is a terrible thing or if it will more likely be awesome. One of my players has asked to play a character with a 'broken soul'. I told him I'd actually make it figure into the game itself through an 'event', and that he could use it as pure flavor OR I could whip up some basic mechanics for it (Survival days and Arcane Defiling, is the idea.) his choice. But, that isn't the part I'm worried about. This 'event' is actually going to get him 'replaced' by the first major BBEG, but I would keep this information secret until the encounter with said BBEG. At that point, the BBEG reveals himself, and the players real character is reunited with the party, only to have to fight the BBEG and the beasty he's trying to wake up. I don't intend to gimp the character mechanically, and when he is found he'll be identical in every way to the fake character. Is this a stupid lovely idea, or is this reveal in the 'kosher' category? For the record, this is the BBEG's inspiration: http://www.mrocznyraj.pl/sklep/images/producenci/wh40k-Necron-Ctan-Deceiver.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Heti posted:I've been using any and all monster stats and attacks as general guidelines rather than actual set numbers
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Anyone have good tips on running episodic games, both in general and with alternating DMs? (i.e. most adventures are relatively self-contained across 1-2 sessions, with occasional reoccurring characters, themes, two-part episodes) Eventually the PCs could prove their worth to the family and become made guys, and be given territory of their own to control, which would provide a common thread between episodes, and let the PCs engage in some collaborative worldbuilding as they could establish their base of operations and expand their territory how they saw fit. At higher levels, you could say that the organization has grown big enough that you're coming into direct conflict with the Aurum and the Tyrants or are even threatening the interests of the Houses themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
If one of my players gets a plan to do something later and he refuses to tell me what he's planning (even in private) until he puts it in action what should I do? One player said he wanted to buy a fish, he "has a plan". I'm worried he's going to do something horribly stupid.  Jimbozig posted:You should talk to your players and see if that's what they want. I think the dice should mean something otherwise you'll never be surprised. If you fudge things to go how you expected them to go (even if you're just going easy on the players), that spoils things for some people. Then again, other people like dice that only count when you want them to. See how your players feel about it. Thanks, we're playing again this weekend, I'll tell them about it. Heti fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Heti posted:If one of my players gets a plan to do something later and he refuses to tell me what he's planning (even in private) until he puts it in action what should I do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
Let the player know that if they tell you what the character's plan is, you'll let them make skill checks to spot potential problems. It lets you avoid having a player try a plan that's never going to work, and it gives them the opportunity to shape it into something better. Basically, think about what you can do to reward your players for doing what you want them to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
It's his first time playing DnD but he is the kind of guy that would think like that (players vs. GM that is). I was definitely going to talk to him about it but now I know how to go about it, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 13:56
|
|
|
Yeah half the fun of a crazy plan is hatching it (often with the other players) then sharing it with the DM so that he can adapt. It can be fun to spring stuff on the DM but not important stuff. Make it clear to him that you are a co-conspirator in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
It's my first time being a GM and I'm having a little trouble with my players. Our previous GM was very much a "do what you want and I'll facilitate" GM, so long as he got to participate with his own character. This sort of play style is what most of my players were used to since they all came from similar gaming roots. I find it a little boring due to it being quite unstructured, but anyway when the game came to a close I put my hand up to run the next campaign under the idea that it would be more story based and less PC-centred. The general gist of the campaign was that magic had disappeared a long time ago and as part of a large scale Gnomish investigation, they would go try to uncover the truth. They were all really excited, until I started doing things that broke from their norm. When I wouldn't let them play humans or elves or let them be special flowers and get to use magic for matters of plot, a few of them got angry (I did offer than Dwarves, Gnomes or any humanoid forest/mountain creature from the monster manuals and even limited Psionics). Quite a few of them got a shock when I put them against creatures they couldn't fight after going into length about how the area they were going into was bad. But probably the worst part was when I put them into a situation where any decision they made would not leave everyone happy. I had really intended it as a chance to really roleplay the characters they had made themselves (I loved how my old GM did this and I was hoping to replicate), but all that I achieved was getting everyone at the table furious at me for not giving them a Win/Win solution. It ended up being a really short game, my final attempt to save it by accelerating the plot by throwing them into the middle of a huge battle where I introduced notable characters didn't really save it. (Infact, since I didn't allow magic they were all so worried they were going to die because they wouldn't have heals at the end.) A few players who thought I was a fantastic GM argued that I should be given a second chance so I've restarted the game. Albeit with some concessions like letting them all play humans and putting magic back into the world. Communication was a big problem, I know that. What are some other things that I can do to help with that, and what are some things I can learn to help me ease them into a situation they aren't entirely used to? I really want these guys to enjoy something more than just is essentially "Lets grind levels until we are powerful enough to do insane poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Stuff  quote:I put my hand up to run the next campaign under the idea that it would be more story based and less PC-centred. Do your NPCs fill a Gandalf role (provide critical narrative, enable PCs to move forward, act in a supporting fashion to PC actions), or take over the spotlight (every single GM-run Driz'zt clone)? Ideally speaking, you probably shouldn't have a Gandalf with the party in any case, but if you do, remember -- when the PCs come second to the plot or the NPCs, the game becomes less fun. Is your game as immersive or as well-narrated as a halfway-decent video game? If not, then sacrificing PC primacy for plot's sake is a mistake. Also: setting. Using a D&D example, is your campaign setting at least as interesting as Dark Sun? If not, don't remove something as central as magic. (There is no divine power in Dark Sun, but the setting is interesting enough that it justifies removing an expected trope.) Why does everyone want to play humans and use magic? Is it that the other options aren't interesting enough? If so, that's not the players' fault. quote:so I've restarted the game. Albeit with some concessions like letting them all play humans and putting magic back into the world. quote:Quite a few of them got a shock when I put them against creatures they couldn't fight after going into length about how the area they were going into was bad. quote:I find it a little boring due to it being quite unstructured quote:I really want these guys to enjoy something more than just is essentially "Lets grind levels until we are powerful enough to do insane poo poo". If everyone wants to do "insane poo poo", then start off at the appropriate power level, and make sure that the challenges the PCs face are indeed challenges for them (in terms of combat, environment, and roleplay). I doubt that they want to have super-masters-of-death and kill snotlings...well, once in a while it's fun to mow down choads in a dazzling display of carnage, but God Mode gets boring fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
My 3.5 game has been going really well, but I need some help with my next session. My players have managed to kill a small group of guards from a neighboring city and so due to the politics of the region there's most assuredly going to be a show of overwhelming force in retalliation. The players are currently holed up in a small mining town surrounded by open ground. I know for a fact they've spent an entire week deciding over email how best to defend the town, i.e. train the townsfolk, mount whatever artillery they can muster, put up barriers. My problem is I'm not really sure how to attack the town and and conduct the combat. The guards will obviously surround the town, along with some seige weapons, although I'm not sure which ones to use--the settings has some steampunk touches but not very many. Do I just try and flatten them or take a more sneaky tact? Should I treat the guards and townsfolk as groups or individual units?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Do the NPCs on either side as groups and just sort of gloss over them, like a quick cutscene/montage type thing. Have the troops (or whatever the PCs end up fighting) as individuals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
when trying to figure out how to manage a big group in combat, ask yourself "how many times do I want to roll 1d20, then 1d8 or whatever for damage. If the answer is "not a million" consolidate some of those individual mob dudes into a strong creature called "big angry mob" or "platoon of guards". If you love to roll dice all day every day never stop rolling dice then absolutely roll individually for each guard and peasant swinging a stick. another benefit of having a single mob group represent 8 or so dudes is that literally every time your players deal damage you can tell them that they cut a guy in half or shot an arrow through three different people or something. That said have some officers or something who maybe act as individual units, and if they die then the mob units lose morale or something, get some penalty. When the officers are around the army acts decisively but when they aren't they just mill around, maybe some groups of people run away while others go berserk burning stuff and fighting whoever they meet without real direction, depending on what you think feels right. Liesmith fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Dec 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I think I'm just going to have them set up as groups and have the players make morale rolls to see whether they are overtaken and then just have a boss fight. Anyone of any good references for steampunkish siege weapons though? I looked in Arms and Armor but couldn't find much. I want to have something to install a little fear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
SnatchRabbit posted:Yeah, I think I'm just going to have them set up as groups and have the players make morale rolls to see whether they are overtaken and then just have a boss fight. Anyone of any good references for steampunkish siege weapons though? I looked in Arms and Armor but couldn't find much. I want to have something to install a little fear.    
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 00:51
|
|
