|
Thanks for the tips. The idea of making heads of factions virtually unkillable monsters, at least at first, is a great one. So is making them come up with a plan, act out the plan with skill checks, and then seeing if it works or doesn't, will add a lot of suspense, especially if a threatening fight and possible long term consequences are around the corner if they fail. Messing with the the reputation of the PC's and reactions of the NPC's will work to my advantage as well.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Any advice on letting players decide aspects of the world in-game? Supposing there was a game where the players are investigators of supernatural events, where the campaign was a series of cases. Would it work if the players, while looking for a new case to take on, got to decide what rumours they've heard relating to cases? For example: "I heard a rumour that corpses have been dug up and torn to shreds in the cemetary...", "That sounds interesting, but I've heard that a great evil artifact has been unearthed, we need to destroy it!", and so on, until they decide what they wanted to investigate. Of course, things might not turn out the way they thought they would, and sometimes rumours are related. Other times, rumours that are mentioned but are not investigated have a chance to develop into something much worse. Does this idea sound like something that would work? Would I need to put some limit on what they get to say, like one sentence or something so that a particular rumour doesn't spiral out of control before I even get to touch it? It'd be a PbP game, so it's not like I'd have only 10 minutes to think up something related to a rumour, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Project1 posted:Any advice on letting players decide aspects of the world in-game? Supposing there was a game where the players are investigators of supernatural events, where the campaign was a series of cases. Would it work if the players, while looking for a new case to take on, got to decide what rumours they've heard relating to cases? For example: "I heard a rumour that corpses have been dug up and torn to shreds in the cemetary...", "That sounds interesting, but I've heard that a great evil artifact has been unearthed, we need to destroy it!", and so on, until they decide what they wanted to investigate. That's pretty similar to the Dungeon World game I am running. Give them questions, and use their answers. Depending on the control you want over the rumors, you can ask a leading question, "There are rumors of an evil artifact. For what purpose did you hear it is used?" "Why was the artifact buried/lost?", this way you can still have a rough sketch of where things can go, what kind of organizations/villains they will be coming across and give them a greater narrative control. By keeping the questions directed, and making them use your questions as the springboard, it shouldn't get out of control and will offer the players an opportunity to create the world with you (and honestly, this usually ends up saving me a bit of time thinking stuff up myself as well as preventing railroading).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I had the idea of having "chapter headings" to set the tone for sessions of play (btw, D&D 4e, if that matters). Is this is in any way a bad idea? For perspective, I am thinking of using lines of lyrics from music or else scenes from movies to set the tone. I am planning to have a friendly Bard NPC accompanying the party most of the time, so I could have him coming up with random lyrical musings that he "can't quite explain where they came from" as an alternative. I know this is kinda weird and specific, but if anyone had any relatable experience, it'd be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I had the idea of having "chapter headings" to set the tone for sessions of play (btw, D&D 4e, if that matters). Is this is in any way a bad idea? It's not a bad idea necessarily, but I've had significantly better results with a two or three sentence recap of last session, slanted humorously for or against the PCs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I had the idea of having "chapter headings" to set the tone for sessions of play (btw, D&D 4e, if that matters). Is this is in any way a bad idea? Lines from music have been useful for my own reference, to remind myself of the feelings I want to get across while GMing. My notes sometimes end up looking more like a mixtape. The Bard thing would be a bit silly, but if you do think the music/video could bring something to the occasion, break out a little clip of it or something, but don't let it overshadow everything. I use titles when I'm organizing games on Facebook, so it'd look like Hunter: Can't spell Christmas without Krampus in a long dead tongue. That way it gives the player a little hint about what's going down and hopefully grabs their curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I had the idea of having "chapter headings" to set the tone for sessions of play (btw, D&D 4e, if that matters). Is this is in any way a bad idea? I did the same thing with file names and map titles for a MapTool campaign I did (though I didn't have the in-game bard). Sometimes they got it, sometimes they didn't. Fun and memorable for me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:For perspective, I am thinking of using lines of lyrics from music or else scenes from movies to set the tone. I am planning to have a friendly Bard NPC accompanying the party most of the time, so I could have him coming up with random lyrical musings that he "can't quite explain where they came from" as an alternative. Or use actual music, I've had a lot of success using softrope to set up scenes. Sound files can come from movie soundtracks or sites like freesound for monster screams or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Never used or even heard of softrope before, but it's pretty awesome. Thanks for linking that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Looking for a little plot help, because I know what I want to happen, generally, but am blanking on specifics. It's a D&D 4e campaign. The players are undercover, pretending to be in the employ of a baron; their actual employer has asked them to get in good with this baron, advance their own cause covertly while doing jobs for him, and assassinate him when the time comes. He has them working as his personal task force at the moment, since they're new to the area and nobody can tie them to him, but every order he gives has been "clarified" by their actual employer's liaison. For example, when he wanted them to finish off a rival baron and destroy his force, the liaison told them to go along with it; that baron had been a thorn in their side, too, might as well make everybody happy. Now I want the baron to tell them to help Group A, his allies, kill or otherwise handle Group B, more of his enemies. The liaison is going to tell them to kill or otherwise handle Group A, too -- clear the board, tell the baron "did our best, it's a good thing you asked us to help or Group B would have won outright." But I can't think of good groups, a good reason for him to side with one, or a good way to wipe them both out. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Looking for a little plot help, because I know what I want to happen, generally, but am blanking on specifics. Rival families are an option -- maybe lands revert to Group A by deed or will or marriage. Rival guilds also work. Or one of each -- a guild on one side and a family on the other. The family is his wife's extended family, for example, and it shares some business with a non-noble guild. You can make a good case for his wife's extended family being either an ally or an enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
You could make the groups each be other nobles, perhaps other barons or whatever title is next below baron in your government system. It can be as simple as the two being in contest for a property or privilege that one of the employing barons wishes to claim for himself. Once the two groups have been "dealt with," the baron(s) employing the PCs will have a justifiable cause to annex that property or privilege, citing to his higher-ups that the lower-downs clearly didn't make proper use of it. This is under the idea that it would be seen as improper for the baron(s) to act directly against either party, and so that's why the PCs are being involved to handle things discreetly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
homullus posted:Rival families are an option -- maybe lands revert to Group A by deed or will or marriage. Rival guilds also work. Or one of each -- a guild on one side and a family on the other. The family is his wife's extended family, for example, and it shares some business with a non-noble guild. You can make a good case for his wife's extended family being either an ally or an enemy. Nietzschean posted:You could make the groups each be other nobles, perhaps other barons or whatever title is next below baron in your government system. It can be as simple as the two being in contest for a property or privilege that one of the employing barons wishes to claim for himself. Once the two groups have been "dealt with," the baron(s) employing the PCs will have a justifiable cause to annex that property or privilege, citing to his higher-ups that the lower-downs clearly didn't make proper use of it. This is under the idea that it would be seen as improper for the baron(s) to act directly against either party, and so that's why the PCs are being involved to handle things discreetly. Think I'm going to use both of these. The baron's discovered that an upstart guild has been bringing supplies into the city, he knows where, and he wants the guild neutralized and their supplies confiscated. He's already sent a group to do so, but they should have been done by now, so he'd like the players to give them a hand finishing the guild off. The liaison then tells them they need to kill off both the guild and the baron's group, destroy the supplies, and for their own sakes, make the baron believe it was the best possible outcome. Thank you both!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
tzirean posted:But I can't think of good groups, a good reason for him to side with one, or a good way to wipe them both out. Thoughts? Is there any reason why both groups can't simply be from rival noble families? Group A servers Baron X, who is allied to Baron Fake Employer; Group B servers Baron Y, who is an enemy of both Baron Fake Employer and Baron Real Employer. Baron Real Employer just wants them both killed so he gets rid of both one of his enemies and one of another enemy's allies. This leaves Baron Real Employer blameless and both of his enemies worse off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Is there any reason why both groups can't simply be from rival noble families? They're level 4; I want to ease them into bumping off noblemen, not turn them into a certified tactical assassination squad before they're halfway through heroic tier. Even the rival baron they killed was an old man trying desperately to regain his past relevance. Killing the baron they're working for is intended to be a serious "whoa, who the hell did that and where the hell did they come from?" moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Killing the baron they're working for is intended to be a serious "whoa, who the hell did that and where the hell did they come from?" moment. I'm not talking about killing Fake Boss, I'm talking about bumping off/beating up Fake Boss' ally's henchmen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
My Eberron campaign is twice monthly and not often enough. Gonna run a literal Dungeon World game--probably using D&D for the system, but the whole drat world is a dungeon with four-to-six cities separated by miles and miles of caves and ruins and poo poo. Think Arx Fatalis, Ultima Underworld, I love the Witcher so I gotta put some Witcher in there. Any fluff ideas or places where I should start for tips on building the world's largest dungeon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Guys/gals, I want to run a game based on the Stalker movie and Roadside Picnic. So not the video game. Those of you who have not seen or read either: firstly, go do so. Secondly, they are largely stealth with a fair amount of "what the hell does this thing do." There are known quantities that are incredibly valuable and more things that will kill you. The stalkers here are not heavily armed. It won't do them any good, as the location is cordoned off by the military. It'd be a small group game- at most four players, preferably three and run as a PbP. What system would you suggest? I know SR3, Unisystem, Palladium, 3.0/3.5, WH40k and would be willing to learn a free system. I can't really afford to expand my collection at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Captain Walker posted:Gonna run a literal Dungeon World game--probably using D&D for the system Wait no why would you do this and not use Dungeon World? KSAF Staff Report posted:Guys/gals, I want to run a game based on the Stalker movie and Roadside Picnic. What system would you suggest? http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/100243/STALKER---The-SciFi-Roleplaying-Game Failing that, probably Apocalypse World since it's got fairly deadly combat and the right freeform-ness for rules to not get in the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Wait no why would you do this and not use Dungeon World? Well, I should probably actually play a game of DW before I run it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Captain Walker posted:Well, I should probably actually play a game of DW before I run it It's super easy to GM - it basically requires you to wing it and forces players to contribute to setting-building. You really don't need to have played it to run it; just a read of the rulebook, EM/Scrape's guide and a bit of imagination and you're set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:It's super easy to GM - it basically requires you to wing it and forces players to contribute to setting-building. You really don't need to have played it to run it; just a read of the rulebook, EM/Scrape's guide and a bit of imagination and you're set. I'll try that. Certainly be easier than running two D&D games. Wish me luck! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
KSAF Staff Report posted:Guys/gals, I want to run a game based on the Stalker movie and Roadside Picnic. So not the video game. Those of you who have not seen or read either: firstly, go do so. Secondly, they are largely stealth with a fair amount of "what the hell does this thing do." There are known quantities that are incredibly valuable and more things that will kill you. The stalkers here are not heavily armed. It won't do them any good, as the location is cordoned off by the military. I would suggest a Gumshoe system. The Gumshoe system is based around being presented with clues and then interpreting them to form a basis for your decisions. You don't roll to notice clues around you, you bid based on your skills to gain those clues and then it is up to you to interpret them. I think this is very much in tune with Roadside picnic / Stalker. For a base system buy Esoterrorists or Mutant city blues as they might work / both are based around police level investigators. Fear itself ( a horror movie style gumshoe variant) is another option if you want very lo-fi characters who come from very normal lives. Here is a quote from the site "In many investigative games, important clues are missed because of failed dice-rolls, resulting in play grinding to a halt. Using a “point spend” system, the GUMSHOE rules revolutionize investigative scenarios, by ensuring that players are never deprived of the clues they need to move the story forward." http://www.pelgranepress.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:
I checked that, but there were 2 problems- it apparently is better as a background book for other games and it is $15 more than my budget. And GUMSHOE looks sweet and like it'd be a perfect match. But, once again, it's above my budget. EDIT: Not trying to be whiny, just realistic. KSAF Staff Report fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
I really want to thank everyone who contributed such wonderful advice and great tips in this thread. I GMed for the first time tonight using a modified version of the Star Wars Edge of the Empire Beginner Set, and I pulled on a lot of the things I read here to make it go smoothly. The improv tips, importance of political vs physical geography, all of the advice about setting up road encounters (will be quite useful since they have a spaceship as a mobile base-of-operations), campaign prep...all so helpful. I might have some questions a little later, but for now, I just want to say thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
In my campaign, the world is close to being hosed. The Cult of the Elder Elemental Eye is getting ready to summon the Tarrasque and that's of course gonna be the end of it all, unless the legendary heroes of the Free Lands can manage to free themselves from their banishment to the outer planes and return in the nick of time. They are of course the party and they've been busy with preparations for a while now, their last step being travelling the Astral Sea to petition the gods themselves for assistance. They're up against the combined forces of the tarrasque, the elemental lords Imix and Ogremoch, the Eye (whose true nature they have yet to discover) and a 1500-year-old insane superwizard, so, any help they can get. Here's the thing. Throughout their career they've never cared much for the gods, but they have done a lot of things consistent with good gods' teachings and thwarted the plans of some evil ones in a major way. They consistently protected innocents, they freed a major trade city from its thieves' guilds, guided lost souls to the afterlife, freed one country from its necromancer ruling elite and overthrew another's Asmodeus-based theocratic dictatorship, they managed to persuade an efreet sultan to make a truce with the material plane rather than start a war, killed many of the Eye Cult's followers and creatures, are helping out the Leonardo da Vinci of their age, founded a genuinely good organization that is even now keeping up hope in the material world, and kept pushing back the attempts of the Order of Tiamat to establish temples in the more civilized realms, to the point of straight up killing an elder dragon of the Order. That should all be reflected in their interactions with the gods to come, and especially their rewards. However, throughout their career, they've also consistently tortured opponents, threatened them with torture (while willing to go through with it), or just taken prisoners in battle only to kill them later. All that was mostly the group warlock's shtick, with some active help from the fighter, and the rest of the group never speaking out against it. The warlock is just now starting to come around to the idea that this might be a bad course of action, but only because a pacifist friend of theirs finally witnessed a killing and threatened to jump ship. All that should probably be equally reflected in their dealings with the gods. I'm well aware the ideal way to handle it would have been to put my foot down when they first grabbed a roadside bandit and threatened to hang him by his lower intestine unless he showed them the way to the bandit camp, but I didn't and here we are. Might yet turn into a moral decision payoff, at least. For now I'm wondering - I've got some ideas, but how would you guys have the gods react to that group of adventurers waltzing up, given that the fate of the world is in a very immediate sense at stake, and that these guys are the most capable mortal warriors are going to get right now, but also all of the above? Assuming standard 4E cosmology/divine interests/entries under "the gods." e: also, from the GM point of view, while I want to keep this consistent with the gods and their domains in D&D land, I also do think they should get some rewards from some of the gods - maybe not those they expect, though - and above all, it's near the end of the campaign, this is more supposed to start wrapping things up than introduce new subplots. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Text about roleplaying A thing that springs to my mind immediately is that they will leave without knowing the gods will help. The gods weigh their actions against each other and won't give a final say. So the group leaves without knowing one way or the other. The gods will probably come in the nick of time anyway because this is fantasy dammit! But the whole thing and the confrontation with the gods might lead some members to question the way the group has acted with double standard. I would say use the gods to reveal all the actions that have been more or less evil to all the group members. Because it seems that not everyone in the group knows about them. Sow the seed of divide between them and let the characters battle it out with their own morals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Characters are characters, gods are gods; the good gods know the characters, being mortal, aren't perfect. What matters is that they try. So how does that work to a payoff in a game? The last time I had a group of PCs account for themselves in front of deities, said deities held a tribunal - judging whether or not the PCs were righteous, in which case they qualified for divine aid, or wicked, in which case the gods would do nothing, let the world end, and then start over. Then I assigned the PCs, as a group, the role of prosecutor; it was their job to prove that the PCs were wicked, while a demigod they'd encountered in the past was set to prove them moral and just. Yes, just like that Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. In the end, the test wasn't the result of the tribunal but the tribunal itself; if the PCs threw the case or didn't own up to the bad poo poo they'd done (and I'd kept track!), the gods would have tossed them out, but so long as they made an honest effort to fulfill the role set forth before them, they were in good shape. That, at least, was the plan for if they 'won' the tribunal by proving themselves terrible people, as eventually happened - had they tried their best but just not marshaled very effective arguments (none of my players was a lawyer or anything, I couldn't be sure their debate skills'd be up to par) I was willing to go with the tribunal results as they stood and leave the whole 'it was just a test!' bit in the dark, since the whole 'petition the gods for aid' was their idea and it was a good one and I didn't want to poo poo on their plans. It ended up being a real character-defining moment for a couple of PCs, both of whom literally talked themselves into alignment shifts (one from CN to CG, one from NG to TN) as a result of their own arguments. The CN guy realized as he was formulating arguments (you could seriously see the lightbulb over the player's head) that for all his talk of 'anarchy' and 'freedom of choice' his character was really interested in 'keeping the little guy from getting the shaft from the powerful;' the NG guy actually said, after the tribunal, that he still thought his arguments were right and that even in the cause of good they'd done bad things, and he would be a fool not to accept and internalize that, and made a deliberate attempt to seek a more balanced view of the world (this was 2nd Edition, so TN was still a lovely 'balance' alignment). So it worked out pretty okay for all concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I'm well aware the ideal way to handle it would have been to put my foot down when they first grabbed a roadside bandit and threatened to hang him by his lower intestine unless he showed them the way to the bandit camp, but I didn't and here we are. Might yet turn into a moral decision payoff, at least. For now I'm wondering - I've got some ideas, but how would you guys have the gods react to that group of adventurers waltzing up, given that the fate of the world is in a very immediate sense at stake, and that these guys are the most capable mortal warriors are going to get right now, but also all of the above? Assuming standard 4E cosmology/divine interests/entries under "the gods." Presumably many of the evil gods want the players on board as well: I mean, not all of them want the universe destroyed if that's where all the best evil takes place, right? So while most of the good gods are offering their boon with strings attached like 'stop torturing people', the lawful evil ones have sent a representative. (None of the gods are too happy about him being there, but their rulebook does say that he has a right, and he's sworn an oath to play nice while he's there.) Asmodeus -- or whoever -- wants the end of the world stopped too, and sure, these guys overthrew one of his cults, but he's a pragmatic fellow. He'd much rather the saviours of the world were his people rather than a bunch of do-gooders. So he's there to offer them his boon as well, and his doesn't come with any strings attached at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Cross-post from the Eberron thread: Are the 3e modules for Eberron any good? I'm thinking of using one to fill that drat annoying gap between level 5 (end of Seekers of the Ashen Crown) and level 7 (recommended for the two really good Eberron adventures from Dragon). Which ones are easily converted to 4th?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Don't think I saw that episode of Star Trek but the tribunal is an angle I hadn't considered before. Sounds a good deal more exciting than having them plead their case with each god individually, anyway, and it might speed things up enough for us to get something else done in that session, too. One or two players aren't exactly big talkers but if I give them 1-2 real time hours to prepare the prosecution, I'm sure they'll come up with something to contribute. I might even have them defended by Bahamut himself, seeing as he's the most likely to both appreciate their more visible deeds but also want to Mark of Justice them on the spot. Maybe I can work in the other ideas as well - I figure if any of the evil gods are going to show an interest, it's going to be Torog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
So I'm looking at starting a Call of C'Thulhu style campaign, most likely in a fantasy setting. I have a pretty solid outline. Most of my players have been playing 3.x and we all like the idea of the flexibility that the 3.x system provides to character creation, but as is often discussed, thee's a lot of flaws with the system that can make awesome character ideas to be pretty useless. Also the volume and complexity of the rules seem slow down the game, bog down storytelling and I'm starting to find that maybe the system makes the complexity more obnoxious than deep. I'm looking for a more streamlined system that would allow for what we want. I've been reading about Dungeon World and I think I can make it work with that. I like how simple and straightforward it seems. I've read through the CoC manuals, and I think that with just a few tweaks I can make Dungeon World work. Anyone have any other suggestions on systems that may work or any experience on implementing something like this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:So I'm looking at starting a Call of C'Thulhu style campaign, most likely in a fantasy setting. I have a pretty solid outline. Most of my players have been playing 3.x and we all like the idea of the flexibility that the 3.x system provides to character creation, but as is often discussed, thee's a lot of flaws with the system that can make awesome character ideas to be pretty useless. Also the volume and complexity of the rules seem slow down the game, bog down storytelling and I'm starting to find that maybe the system makes the complexity more obnoxious than deep. BRP (Basic Role Playing) sounds like what your looking for. It's what call of Cthulhu used to run on and is dead simple. D100's for everything but damage. Roll under the % you have in a skill and its a success. Roll 1/5 of your percentage and it's an impale (i.e. critical success)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
I think you could get a great CoC style fantasy game by grafting some Monster of the Week basic moves onto Dungeon World. Edit: Basically add some version of Investigate a Mystery and use Luck as Sanity. You could also use the mystery building rules because they will work just like a CoC adventure. There's a freaky thing somewhere, it's making trouble, if you don't stop it stuff gets worse, it's super powerful but has some kind of weakness, etc. wzzard fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Loanarn posted:BRP (Basic Role Playing) sounds like what your looking for. It's what call of Cthulhu used to run on and is dead simple. D100's for everything but damage. Roll under the % you have in a skill and its a success. Roll 1/5 of your percentage and it's an impale (i.e. critical success) I'll have to look into it, but that sounds like it might be better. Thanks! My main concern really is that DW might be a bit too simple for the guys I play with. We've all grown to love a lot of aspects of 3.5, to switch to DW might be too much of a dumbing down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Maybe I can work in the other ideas as well - I figure if any of the evil gods are going to show an interest, it's going to be Torog. Have Torog and Bahamut argue over who gets to be the defense attorney, and at the end have them both do it (competitively) with Bahamut pointing out the greater good their actions have generated and Torog pointing out the expedience of their methods. VVV That's why you have the argument off screen and just introduce two grumpy gods trying to one-up each other's defense. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Have Torog and Bahamut argue over who gets to be the defense attorney, and at the end have them both do it (competitively) with Bahamut pointing out the greater good their actions have generated and Torog pointing out the expedience of their methods. I'd love this idea if there weren't the danger of the PCs standing there quietly while two NPCs argue in front of them. If you trust your players, though, Horse, you might be able to get away with shanghaing some of them to play the parts of Bahamut and Torog while the other players play themselves; careful selection of players can even give some of the less-socially-active players a chance to shine, because the people that usually handle the social foo are being NPCs right now. But that'll backfire if your group or your individual players aren't ready for it, and you know your players the best, so that's your call.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
My players have decided to invest some of their coin into setting up a sort of guild, where they have adventurers recruited and sent off on the missions they don't want to do or help them out on missions. I was thinking of setting up a kind of roster of recruits, who are recruited from a random pool of race/class combos. How would you guys handle this? Grab a monster statblock and adjust it a bit to make an "adventurer" who seems kind of right? Have them level up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:My players have decided to invest some of their coin into setting up a sort of guild, where they have adventurers recruited and sent off on the missions they don't want to do or help them out on missions. I was thinking of setting up a kind of roster of recruits, who are recruited from a random pool of race/class combos. For the ones being sent out on other missions, don't even bother statting them. They succeed or fail based on the needs of the fiction. As for the ones they want to bring along as hired help, what system are you running? The answer is going to vary depending on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Kestral posted:For the ones being sent out on other missions, don't even bother statting them. They succeed or fail based on the needs of the fiction. Sorry should have said - 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:57
|
|