|
Give them about as much information as the average person has about the scary evil empires in the real world, and make it about as hard to get the real scoop on them as it is in real life. I don't think most people are very knowledgeable about the rest of the world at all. For example, ask someone on the street about Iran and you'll maybe get this much: -It's a big desert country next to the other big desert country we invaded -They're bad guys -They're muslims -Their leader, ackmedinasomething, is a smug prick with a sweet dinner jacket -They're trying to make A-bombs -There are riots going there right now Not all of which is necessarily either objective or true!
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2009 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:Give them about as much information as the average person has about the scary evil empires in the real world, and make it about as hard to get the real scoop on them as it is in real life. I don't think most people are very knowledgeable about the rest of the world at all. For example, ask someone on the street about Iran and you'll maybe get this much: That's what I was aiming for, really. It seems I had little to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2009 21:17
|
|
|
Best thread for this question. So, when it comes to 'Open World' and 'All Roads Lead Here' GMing, what do you guys think? I'm locked in a debate on another forum who keeps insisting players 'hate being railroaded into a plot they have no control over', when as I understand 'All Roads Lead Here' doesn't take choice away from players, but opens up choice without leaving the DM floundering to create encounters on the fly. JUst want to see what other people think of both game styles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 05:45
|
|
|
Personally if I'm DMing a tabletop campaign with my own group, I don't really try to direct the players in any way. I find that if I've already decided what the outcome of the players' choice is it can leave everyone feeling frustrated even if they aren't quite sure why. If you give players the illusion of choice they can usually tell they're not being given a real choice, maybe even on a subconscious level, and that tends to lessen their enjoyment. That's my take on it, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 06:48
|
|
|
How do some people make "open choice" scenerios? If you present an evil overlord as a threat to the world, or at least the region, its in their interest to go after him. Didnt by doing that you "forced" them into it? I'm trying to get a feel for making a more open campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 11:53
|
|
|
The idea is not to limit your players' choices. Let's say you've introduced an evil overlord character like you described--a villainous baron, perhaps. It's true that not a lot of good characters are going to ignore that, but I don't think it's railroading just to introduce a potential enemy. That's part of your job as the DM. But it's up to the players how to handle it. Maybe they want to go to a neighboring rival noble to recruit help, or rally local peasants to overthrow him, or convince the king to remove him from power, or just invade his keep and kill him. Or if they decide to not deal with him and move on, try to have at least an outline of some stuff elsewhere for them to do. True, it can be disappointing when you create a scenario only to have your players ignore it, but that's just part of being a DM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 15:21
|
|
|
I'm sort of worried that my campaign will be the same way - the villain has a plan, but he's not a sort of "MUAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL SEE THIS GIRL TIED TO A RAILROAD" villain. What I'm planning is having a "Doomsday Clock" in the background along the lines of "X sessions passed, the villain achieves Phase 1 of his plan" up to "He completes his plan and now needs stopping before he can capitalise on it." Is that particularly unfair? There'll be things to do other than challenge him, and I'll be flexible with the time limit (if the players stay in one place for a long time because a combat or encounter took a long time mechanically, I'll delay the clock by a session.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
AndItsAllGone posted:The idea is not to limit your players' choices. Let's say you've introduced an evil overlord character like you described--a villainous baron, perhaps. It's true that not a lot of good characters are going to ignore that, but I don't think it's railroading just to introduce a potential enemy. That's part of your job as the DM. But it's up to the players how to handle it. Maybe they want to go to a neighboring rival noble to recruit help, or rally local peasants to overthrow him, or convince the king to remove him from power, or just invade his keep and kill him. Or if they decide to not deal with him and move on, try to have at least an outline of some stuff elsewhere for them to do. True, it can be disappointing when you create a scenario only to have your players ignore it, but that's just part of being a DM. OK I get you now. Give them options but if they think of another way be ready to accommodate it and the proper consequences Bob Smith posted:I'm sort of worried that my campaign will be the same way - the villain has a plan, but he's not a sort of "MUAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL SEE THIS GIRL TIED TO A RAILROAD" villain. Not at all. Just remind them that theres urgency if theyre the type to rest after every fight. Most campaign villians exist in a vacuum where their plans hinge on how close the PCs are to foiling him. The biggie is though, never make it impossible to win. If he succeeds the heroes should be down but not out. Maybe he completed a ritual that makes him way too strong for them to win at their level, so they must flee and return when they're stronger, that sort of thing. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Not at all. Just remind them that theres urgency if theyre the type to rest after every fight. Most campaign villians exist in a vacuum where their plans hinge on how close the PCs are to foiling him. That's what I was planning. Even if he "wins" his plan is still very up in the air (he thinks that by crashing a satellite into an important city, he can stage a coup by playing the factions affected against each other, and ultimately gain control of an entire planet) and so it will simply be on the PCs consciences that X million people died - but in turn the vengeance may be sweeter. And the possibility will even exist for them to join him while he's plotting, and backstab him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
I don't think something like that is Railroading, though. You have a plot with a point. There's a difference. If your characters want to go dick around, that's fine. There should be no reason they can't. But, you have a plot, and why should you have to forgo that just because you have a player who wants to go poke the rabbits till they explode. I don't think your players will call railroading on you for that, and if they do, they're terrible players anyway. Just make sure they have a fair chance at getting to the badguy before he manages to do his WORLD ENDING THING, and don't force your players to go along one set route. That's railroading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 16:02
|
|
|
As far as computers with knowledge type rolls, I like M&M's approach - access to google/wiki will let you take 20 on a knowledge roll. Another approach is just to assume they'll need access to it to do research at all - trying to do research without it will inflict stiff penalties. I do like the suggestion for failed rolls. If there was an anime or comic book character named the same thing as you're searching for, you're hosed. Bob Smith posted:I'm sort of worried that my campaign will be the same way - the villain has a plan, but he's not a sort of "MUAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL SEE THIS GIRL TIED TO A RAILROAD" villain. Not only is this awesome, but I'm totally stealing it for my M&M game. I wouldn't treat it as literal time, but like the old nuclear doomsday clock. The closer his plan is to completion, the closer it is to midnight. If they fail, it advances. If they succeed it might move back. Love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 16:14
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:I'm sort of worried that my campaign will be the same way - the villain has a plan, but he's not a sort of "MUAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL SEE THIS GIRL TIED TO A RAILROAD" villain. This is exactly what the 3.5 Red Hand of Doom adventure does, and it works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2009 16:38
|
|
|
I've always found DMing much more akin to improv acting than to storytelling or mastering... dungeons.... Ahem. Its sort of been mentioned above, but essentially, never say no, always say "Yes, but". "Yes you can climb the tower, but someone might see you and its fairly hard" "Yes you can beat up the bartender, but the guard might notice" "Sure you can attempt to find an Orc porn store, but you'll have to make a charisma check to not get jumped, its a bad neighborhood" "Yes you can attempt to construct a rudimentary lathe..." is much better than "No the tower is too hard to climb" "No hes an important NPC" "No thats dumb" "No thats not a skill in the skill list" Also, all of the best games have played in, have been incredibly character focused. Plot was a secondary element, the real meat of the gameplay was the interaction between PCs and NPCS, and PCs and PCs. One of the best DMs was incredibly good at this, and his games were great, even if the plot was a little stereotypical. Also don't be afraid to bend the rules. Don't break, but bend. Some of the worst games I've been in have simply been combat encounter followed by combat encounter. An occasional dungeon crawl is fine, but if I want to play a tactical game, I'll play WarHammer/Machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
Regarding overall party direction: I myself try to build a semi-sandbox world with 'mission points' al la GTA or something. Let's say there's a dragon eating villagers in the south, a lich harassing a castle town to the north, and rumors of odd lights and crystalline growths in the valley to the west. Each of these is a 'level 1' situation, much like the earlier doomsday clock but less overtly threatening. If the party takes care of one of these issue, the other two go to level 2. If the party ignores them all, they all go to level 2. As fallout from each of the three situations reaches the party's base town, they get more details and direct information along the lines of 'poo poo is getting out of control.' They clear two, third gets serious and they go there next, everything scaling up to match the newly leveled up party. What gets interesting is if they ignore one or more and refuse to deal with it. If the party goes whitewater rafting to the east and something got past 'level 3' then they will suddenly find undead sharks and spiky crystalline rocks in the rapids and may very well come home to their lodge razed (and the staff killed) by a dragon while they were rafting, which then stole all their loot that they may have left in their rooms while rafting. (I think I'm mixing up rafting and ski resorts BUT OH WELL) I try to plant any 'situation' in a game world like a seed. If it gets snuffed out and the party gets XP and loot, so be it. If they let it thrive, I get to work my brain about how this affects the overall game world. In a more overarching game I might include a hidden situation (oh no, there was an orc army forming in caves underneath the rapids resort all along!) that only some really good rolls/RP would have revealed before it got to 'level 4' and suddenly pirate orcs on surfboards are terrorizing riverfronts across the land. The one thing I try to stick to is never punishing the players severely for choices they make in good faith for non horrible reasons. That whole loot-stolen example? I am not going to make them fight a pack of beholders naked or anything. Maybe a rust monster (HEEHEE it tickles OH GOD MY FILLINGS!) but the whole 'get your poo poo back from dragon' makes an even more interesting time than 'let's kill a dragon.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2009 07:21
|
|
|
My personal DMing style is, as I said 'All Roads LEad Here'. I have a lose idea of a plot. A major villian with a plan. An arcance convergence. A plague. Whatever. Then I set up some encounters attatched to said primary plot. Then I plant those encounters wherever the party happens to be when I feel the plot needs to be advanced. Players often don't ignore combat put in front of their face. It allows them to 'sandbox' with the world, without me needing to design a million extra encounters to keep them happy. I can RP characters on the fly. I can't stat them out on the fly, ya know? Of course, sufficent hooks mean they'll follow any railroad with pleasure, since they always thing they can get off at any time. >.> Until they learn about the 'phat lootz' at the next stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
lighttigersoul posted:My personal DMing style is, as I said 'All Roads LEad Here'. All the flaws of the various game systems aside, this is exactly why I love White Wolf/Storyteller games. Sometimes, I get to decide on the fly how many dice hit the table for the baddies to attack and defend, and I get to call on the fly when they die, at the most entertaining possible point. Pre-built and statted monsters are just meat for the monster manual savants in my group, and properly designed custom NPC foes might go down way too slow or fast depending on how much gear the party has/how well they fight. D20 and some other games are not designed with that flexibility in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2009 09:52
|
|
|
My group does "Well, A B and C is probably going to happen tonight, and you do your own thing and I'll work out how to connect the dots." A lot of the time the dots are connected, but sometimes there is a change of plans. Player choice can always change what the DM had in store, especially since we're snotty, bratty adventurers. What I've learned is that good players will always throw surprises at you, and it's your job in turn to reward creativity with creativity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2009 10:22
|
|
|
Just started playing D&D 3.5ed. about 4 weeks ago, and the current GM is fine doing his thing as GM, but seems to want to PC more often. So, being interested in the opportunity, I'm about to try my hand at GM-ing in a few weeks. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for a story, and I hope they enjoy it, as much as I have had in my writing of it. What I'm wondering is, would it be completely ridiculous to introduce dragons at PC-lvl 3? I have a plan for a battle with a very young green dragon (which wont be too tough on them, I don't think), and a friendly very old, gold dragon that assists them in battle against an old black dragon. Obviously I don't want the dragons to lose their luster(to PCs) so soon, as I have intended for multiple dragon battles to take place, and also I have written in the gold dragon as a bit central to the story of the campaign(though he can be staved off for a later adventure in this story). Long story short, am I ruining any sort of mystique for the PCs by throwing dragons in the mix so early? Is there a level at which dragons might be more acceptably introduced?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
Jiggity posted:Long story short, am I ruining any sort of mystique for the PCs by throwing dragons in the mix so early? Is there a level at which dragons might be more acceptably introduced?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Jiggity posted:Just started playing D&D 3.5ed. about 4 weeks ago, and the current GM is fine doing his thing as GM, but seems to want to PC more often. So, being interested in the opportunity, I'm about to try my hand at GM-ing in a few weeks. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for a story, and I hope they enjoy it, as much as I have had in my writing of it. A very young green dragon will be very tough but probably manageable. However, the "gold dragon assists the party against an old black dragon" won't work. A single attack from an old black dragon will most likely kill a character, and they won't even be able to hit it or beat it's SR. If you do do this, the players aren't going to be able to do anything other than watch the fight go down, so I wouldn't recommend it. Also, it seems like you might be making the gold dragon one of the worst kinds of a NPC - the far more powerful character that "helps" the party along. The problem with this is that it basically reduces the PC's to sidekicks when they should be the heroes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Piell posted:A very young green dragon will be very tough but probably manageable. However, the "gold dragon assists the party against an old black dragon" won't work. A single attack from an old black dragon will most likely kill a character, and they won't even be able to hit it or beat it's SR. If you do do this, the players aren't going to be able to do anything other than watch the fight go down, so I wouldn't recommend it. Very glad for your input, tendrilsfor20 and piell, that could've been disastrously un-fun on my part. The plan is to make this (dragon vs. PC/NPC) part of the story, with increasingly great PC involvement. Combat against babby green dragon is entirely up to the NPCs, no gold dragon involved (haven't met him in the dragon form yet). Ideally, the PCs get a little pants-lovely when they meet the green dragon that they fight, then a lot pants lovely when they meet the old gold dragon, who ends up being friendly. Gold dragon should only weaken Black dragon to the point of becoming humanoid (a very short, narrative part, no dice rolls involved) and weakened enough so that he can be defeated by PCs. The PCs defeat the humanoid black dragon, and the gold dragon [as a dragon] flies back, *praises Bahamut* and whisks them back to the place they met. [humanoid gold dragon is, btw, the NPC that starts them off on this journey]. The other DM and I are basically, at this point planning on alternating turns DM-ing. Our stories have some coherence so far, I think, so I hope it works. The Gold dragon is not a one-off NPC, I'm planning to write him in to the story so that he gives quests, becomes less helpful [combat-wise], etc. We'll see though, if this doesn't work out well, it will be an idea scrapped, though I think your input shapes it back into something that could work. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 04:12
|
|
|
why doesn't the gold dragon finish off the black dragon if he is sufficiently weakened that level 3 PCs can kill him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
plarp posted:why doesn't the gold dragon finish off the black dragon if he is sufficiently weakened that level 3 PCs can kill him? Indeed. Or if you must go down this route, have the gold dragon give the PCs a magical item (such as an amulet or scroll or some other one shot item) that the PCs can use to weaken the black dragon. The gold dragon can then go off somewhere else, the PCs will feel it's their kill and not the gold dragons. Make it clear that the black dragon will not just let the PCs up and use the item on him, make them work some way to covertly use it on him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 05:15
|
|
|
Jiggity posted:Dragon Stuff Although I haven't had the opportunity to play a party assisting NPC, one of the worst experiences my gaming group had was with a high-level NPC reliant party. What happened was the GM introduced a Githyanki NPC who did all of the fighting for the group. When confronted with this conundrum, the GM had the character bring us up to a higher plane to gain 10 levels, and then sent us to some variation of hell. At that point we all got tired of her poo poo and quit her game ((third session in oh boy)). So while a gold dragon that helps the party out at first might seem like a harmless and very epic opportunity, you have to realize that if it's the gold dragon doing all of the work the party may as well not even be there. I speak as a player when I say that cutscenes are meant for video games and video games only. If the party is at third level, the young green dragon is a fine idea. But there is a very thin line when it comes to dealing with NPCs of a much higher power. I myself have not been able to make such a situation work, but I have seen many situations where it has not. You might be best holding it for a later level, or introducing the artifact that some of the previous posters mentioned. But if you feel like the party deserves a gold dragon assisting them in slaying a black dragon, so be it. On a similar topic, how do you guys normally play NPCs? How often do you try to include one in the party, and how often do you try to pull them from out of the fire? ((That is to say, if a player kills them prematurely do you go with it or try to save them?))
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
I once smacked a bronze dragon in the eye with an axe because it was a DM-favoured NPC that wouldn't stop telling us what to do. Didn't harm it at all, but it was satisfying. We then basically stood around with our fingers in our ears yelling LA LA LA until it finally flew off in a huff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 12:33
|
|
|
lighttigersoul posted:My personal DMing style is, as I said 'All Roads LEad Here'. I DM this way as much as I can as well, but with 4e needing maps so much it's hard to not railroad a bit or set plot point areas specifically. I hand draw all the maps out ahead of time for quick and easy placement rather than just scribbles of wet erase marker for dungeons, so to some degree it depends on the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 16:01
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:I DM this way as much as I can as well, but with 4e needing maps so much it's hard to not railroad a bit or set plot point areas specifically. I hand draw all the maps out ahead of time for quick and easy placement rather than just scribbles of wet erase marker for dungeons, so to some degree it depends on the system. If you do scribbles on the wet erase board method, it makes it a lot easier to do this sort of on the fly gaming. Also if you're running 4e and have DDI, making balanced encounters on the fly is a snap as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2009 17:52
|
|
|
plarp posted:why doesn't the gold dragon finish off the black dragon if he is sufficiently weakened that level 3 PCs can kill him? My idea has been developing as the days go by [mostly due to input here, and from my re-thinking of the idea due to input]. The Gold dragon is introduced [though not known by PCs] as a humanoid who has a quest in a long forgotten wood. Arriving there, they wander around [due fights ensue], and eventually, after a med. length dungeon, they encounter previous humanoid NPC in his dragon form. Gold dragon has a plan to kill this black dragon -- who can not be killed by another dragon -- so the PCs arrange themselves around the marble pillars on this floating [circular] platform. Their arrangement is [hopefully] contrasting the depictions of certain gods on the pillars. Essentially, the PCs will need to figure out that their choice of pillar-activation [important to either healing gold, or damaging black], is dependent upon their alignment. Once the introductory fight [with dice rolls for activating pillars etc., and point reductions for being at the wrong pillar] is done (by which I mean, the PCs assist the gold dragon in his fight against the black dragon, not one round of turns until the gold one flies off and the black one turns humanoid), gold dragon flies off, knowing he can do no more, as he cannot defeat the humanoid version of this dragon, the PCs have to, it's written in the lore/legend/history. Both dragons will roll, against something, though I'm not sure yet. The PCs will be involved, which I'm also working out. So far the idea is to have PCs figure out which pillar to stand near and activate, then roll for hit, and then roll 1d20+30 for dmg to black dragon, then have the other two roll for hit, then roll 1d20+20 for heals to gold dragon. The rolls aren't concrete, but I think the idea is becoming moreso, and I appreciate your input. It seems like it'll be a hell of a time for my first DM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
Do your players like dragons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
If you're hellbent on doing that, making the bonus to rolls +30/20 is really stupid; all it does is reassure your players that they aren't doing poo poo, and that it's entirely you behind the wheel. Make them roll a bunch of die for damage, instead of a single d20, and get rid of the bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
I still wouldn't reccomend going with this. Your idea sounds good in your head because it'd make a sweet action scene in a movie, but its still regulating the party to side kicks even if they're helping in a big way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 06:38
|
|
|
No changes you make that still include "PC's assist" are going to change people's opinion of this. The PC's should be doing the doing, not assisting the doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 08:19
|
|
|
The way I see it, the encounter doesn't even have to change. . . well. . . at all. . . to make this more fun from a player perspective. Before I'm lynchmobbed, I'll explain. Instead of masking it as 'Well, I'll fight him down for you, you finish him off' have the dragon make it clear that he CAN'T stop the Black dragon at all. But there is a ritual he knows of that the PCs can perform that can weaken him enough that they could destroy him. Then, if you want to include the Gold Dragon VS Black Dragon combat, the Gold Dragon is merely buying them a little time to perform the needed actions. Maybe throw in some attacks getting through, some reflex saves perhaps, with acid damage attached. This way, the PCs won't feel like they're playing second fiddle to a dragon, and may get a bigger rush thinking that the dragon is playing second fiddle to them. Also, if the gold is fending off the black for them, a good 'finish' may be to kill the NPC gold off as they are finishing the ritual. Depends on if you plan on keeping good ol' gold around for the long haul or not. I'd suggest against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 08:25
|
|
|
Dragons have bigass treasure hordes. It's kind of their thing. A dragon that the party needs major assistance to defeat is also going to have a pile of treasure that is entirely inappropriate for the party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:Dragons have bigass treasure hordes. It's kind of their thing. A dragon that the party needs major assistance to defeat is also going to have a pile of treasure that is entirely inappropriate for the party. This encounter doesn't need to end up any where NEAR the dragon's lair. But yeah, in the lair, you've got a serious point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
You've all been right all along, in my mind it seems like such an epic thing to have happen, but it probably wouldn't be that fun for the PCs. I'm going to make them come back to that area at a later time, and fight it when they're higher level. Going to stick to the green dragon for now, and maybe just introduce the gold dragon to them, maybe not even that. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2009 19:43
|
|
|
Here's a possible "fix". As lighttigersoul said, have the Gold and the Black fighting to buy time, while the players complete a ritual that will turn the Black Dragon to humanoid form. Don't make it that he is "unbeatable" in Dragon form, just have it that he's, well, very, very powerful/loaded with magic whatever and the Gold dragon isn't sure he can beat him, but there's this (three/four/five) man ritual that, if completed, will "weaken" him. He figures he can keep the BD occupied while you three scurry about preparing and performing the ritual, because the BD isn't going to pay attention to you while the gold is going on. So there's a big dragon fight in the sky (causing the occasional terrain issue, such as thrown trees or stray attacks flying their direction). Have some level-appropriate (or slightly below level appropriate due to the terrain hazards) enemies attack them, either lackeys of the dragon or ritual byproducts (OK guys we're nearly do OH poo poo THE RITUAL IS ON FIRE AH THE FIRE HAS TURNED INTO FIRE IMPS AHH AHH). So now it's not Dragon A vs Dragon B while the PCs watch, it's PCs trying to do a complex task while being attacked in waves, with some dragons doing something in the background. There's a few ways you can go now... either a) BD incapacitates GD on the last round of the ritual, so it's PCs vs injured Humanoid Dragon, or b) the ritual turns BOTH dragons Humanoid, GD is incapacitated (by falling froma great height, or because he got turned first and got smacked down by big black before he turns too, whatever), so now it's PCs vs injured Humanoid Dragon. PCs kill BD, do some quick first aid on GD, they now have a VERY grateful GD. You have: Level appropriate combat with terrain hazards and a required goal, followed by a level appropriate boss fight, followed by a nice social interaction with a grateful Gold Dragon. Sounds like a fun encounter to me! Bonus plot hooks: GD may be trapped in Humanoid form due the ritual! How can he be returned to GD form? Sounds like a quest chain! Why was he fighting a black dragon in the first place, and was there anything he needed to do after that being stuck as a puny Human may make difficult? Sounds like a quest chain! Perfect excuse for the "do it yourself" crowd. "Go kill it yourself?" "I would if I was STILL A GODDAMN DRAGON." Grumpy mentor who knows everything but can't do anything himself due to events the PCs were directly involved in? Sounds like a good Plot Dispenser to me. Edit: Gold Dragon may even have been counting on questioning the BD, but his incapacitation and the resultant death of BD has just made his life much more complicated. You don't even have to reveal straight away that he's stuck. You can have the dragon says "Yay! That all worked out. Well, I'm off. This should wear off in a day or two, thanks for your help." (a couple of sessions later) "You see an oddly familiar, and rather upset, looking man...." Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jun 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 12:57
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:Do your players like dragons? This is pretty important - even with all the suggested "fixes" applied it will still come off like trying to play out "this awesome dragon story" that the players might not even be interested in at all. Personally I'd be turned off by a storyline that is "dragons dragons OH poo poo HUGE BLACK DRAGON, better help this other dragon beat him!" and subbing in a green one instead wouldn't make it much better. edit: If your campaign setting is really dragon-centric and you won't budge on that, have you considered starting them off with something non-dragon-related just to sort of get them settled into the world you've created? Possibly put the dragon stuff on the back-burner (with the plot hooks ready to pull out when appropriate)? If the group has expressed a lot of interests in dragons, disregard because you're giving them exactly what they want. If you don't know what motivates them yet, though, try some smaller-scale things to get a feel for your players while they're getting a feel for your setting. You might know what motivates them already based on your weeks of playing with them - cater to that. Spiffo fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jun 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
He said he's not doing it you can relax now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:He said he's not doing it you can relax now. True, I'm planning on saving that encounter [minus the GD assist] for a time when the PCs are able to take it on themselves. After the last couple nights of DMing, my best advice [and it might be a restatement] is to be on your toes. PCs will do a ton of poo poo that wont be able to be forseen, and you'll have to react. To the contrary, you'll have the option to surprise your NPCs as much as you want with traps, encounters, etc. I'd also recommend preparing a good description of the terrain, which I don't do a terribly great job at just yet, which prompts a lot of questions from PCs, that I have to respond to off-the-cuff. I had a lot of pre-written clues, and bits of lore [elven, dwarven etc.], and was prepared to drop them when appropriate. Scored fairly big amongst the PCs it seemed. Thanks for the advice guys, it's seemed to have paid off quite well so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2009 04:03
|
|