|
Yeah, i actually more or less ruined the end of my last Shadowrun campaign this way. There was the requisite big evil dude the runners needed to get rid of, and my intention was that they would basically get his powerful enemies to do it for them. I had designed his estate to be as impregnable as I could make it so that they would get the idea that an assault or infiltration was not going to work and that they had to find a workaround. Unfortunately they just got discouraged and annoyed with the <various expletives> fortress I had designed, and eventually more or less abandoned their efforts. The really bad part was that everyone was graduating and moving away so it was our last session and the campaign ended on a real downer. tl;dr: Give your players multiple ways of solving problems. What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to them, no matter what clues you think are there.
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
wet sector posted:
The best thing to do, in my view, is just to wing it. Nothing is less fun, and destroys faith in the GM more, than having you spend a bunch of time looking up obscure rules. Decide what you think makes sense, and go with that. If you think it's important, look it up later. If it turns out you played things completely wrong, you may want to explain things to your players and make amends if necessary, but the important thing for everyone's fun is to keep the action going. In that specific situation, unless there's some particular reason for the goblin to be tough as nails, he probably spills his guts. If the torture is just for the heck of it, I guess then it depends how much you and your players want to get into graphic descriptions of burning goblin flesh. With the player on player violence, as long as everyone is cool with it that could be a fun game. On the other hand, if most of the players want to be a team and you've got one guy determined to stab them in the back every chance he gets, it can be a problem for the game, not the PCs. "Kerison posted:Go one step further: when they come up with some clever (but perhaps completely nonsensical) solution, pretend you planned it that way all along. Just bullshit the solution to whatever problem you've presented them, if necessary, but never let the PCs feel so lost and incompetent that they throw their hands up and say "gently caress it, we give up." If they really can't spot your awesome solution, just go along with whatever it is they came up with. It's better than spending ten or more minutes sitting around while they ponder amongst themselves. Absolutely. Improvising is one of the GM's primary skills, successfully concealing the fact that you're improvising is another. One of the sessions I got the most satisfaction from was a in a D6 Star Wars campaign where the PCs went off in a completely unanticipated direction right off the bat, so I was winging it the entire session. I gave them a (fake) reproach for doing such a horrible thing to me at the end of the night, and was really pleased that they hadn't been able to tell. If your players are having fun, go with it to the greatest extent you can. You can always get them back into the main plot another time if you want.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2009 05:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What do you guys do when your party is making a lot of unanticipated mistakes? I mean anything from tactically poor decisions, to forgetting that certain skills exist, to approaching every problem from the exact same angle? There's always just telling them "hey guys you know that was a pretty poor move right there, see if you did this or this or this, you'd be in better shape" but I've got a really strong aversion to telling players how they should play their characters. If they do something really dangerously stupid, I do tend to say things like "so, your character realizes that that's pretty risky" or "are you sure? x or y or z could happen..." but even that to some degree can feel like taking away the challenge. If it's a one-off mistake, I just let them make it. No reason they can't screw up. However, if they're consistently not using skills that would be helpful, or missing what should be an obvious approach, I have in the past had one or more characters make an intelligence roll (whatever the equivalent is in the game) with to give them a chance to go 'Aha!' In my experience though most players don't enjoy being handed a solution so I have only done it when the group is clearly frustrated or getting further away from a good solution rather than closer. In my ill-fated Shadowrun game I sent out an email between games gently reminding people that their contacts could be really useful to them if they bothered to use them, as well. So you could mention whatever their difficulty is in between sessions if it's forgetting to use all their skills or abilities. I don't want to restart the big XP  but I have a question for the GMs who award full XPs to characters with absent players - how is this rationalized in game, or do you bother? Are the characters assumed to have been present, and just in the background, or were they off doing their own thing that happened to net them the same amount of XP? In lots of games different players get different amounts of XP depending on their accomplishments, so how do you handle that for absent players? Do they just get an average award?I had to think pretty hard about how groups I have been in handled this situation because usually we just didn't play if everyone couldn't make it, but as I recall if you weren't there, you didn't get the XP because your character didn't do anything. When we played AD&D I believe you could have someone else play your character for you if you were going to miss a session. When I GMed I think it only came up once or twice, because usually if someone couldn't make it we found another time to play. What I did the couple times people did miss was try to schedule a solo session with the player who couldn't make it to give them a chance to rack up some XP. I had never thought of it as a punishment issue before.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 18:00
|
|
|
Gotcha, but what I was really interested in at this point was how your GM handles in in-game rationalization of this kind of thing, if it's something you worry about. If you're not there, is your character tagging along in the background, or off on a side mission, or what? I'm not asking because I think it's a problem necessarily, I'm just interested. I can see 'Well, Fighter Bob just isn't here at the moment' being easy if you're in town or something, but if you're halfway through a dungeon it's a bit trickier to justify a character not being there for a while. Unless you just go 'Ahhh, whatever'. Thinking about this now, I remember one session from AD&D long, long ago (I was not the GM) when the guy playing our cleric couldn't make it one short notice. We went ahead and played, and the GM ruled that the cleric had had to observe some kind of religious festival and was therefore absolutely loaded - most of the time all he could do was weave along behind the party trying to keep up. On the other hand if you grabbed his attention he could do some healing or turn undead, but that was about it. Worked ok, as I recall. I can't recall how the XP issue worked there because it wasn't my character so I didn't particularly care.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2009 15:13
|
|
|
Joudas posted:First off I would need an in-game rationalization to explain away "Levels" and "experience points" and all that poo poo first, before it would bother me that I don't have an in-game rationalization for why all of the players are the same level at the same time, always. Thanks for the unnecessarily hostile response, cheers dude! Fortunately there were numerous other people who wrote sane replies to the question I was actually asking instead of trying to restart the argument I was explicitly not interested in. Don't worry, I believe you, you're way cooler than me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:^We do that too. It becomes almost expected after years of playing these games because you inevitably run into some jerk who plays a max CHA + diplomacy + feats to boost diplomacy to handwave away any sort of conflict. So you make them justify it by explaining what they said that's so drat persuasive. I have not yet run into that particular brand of jerk, although I used a kind of middle-of-the-road approach with this. I think you should be able to play a smooth-talkin' mofo even if you're not one yourself, so people could make fast talk/intimidation/persuasion rolls without having a line if they couldn't think of one. On the other hand, if they had a good argument or effective line, they'd get a bonus. Then again I give bonuses to just about anything if you're trying to roleplay and especially if you're doing something awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's different to play a smooth guy and someone who's words can stop wars. The latter better be justified. Ok, I'll grant you that if a player said 'I use my Charisma (or whatever) to convince Churchill to end the war with Nazi Germany', I'd want to know how they would possibly go about that before allowing a roll. On the other hand, if the request was to use Charisma (or whatever) to convince a specific group of Allied soldiers and a specific group of Nazis to stop fighting each other in the immediate situation, I'd probably allow the roll. It would be a really goddamn hard roll, so having a clever argument to boost their chances would be beneficial, but even if they didn't have one I'd let them roll the bones. I kind of get the sense you're thinking of a specific situation or situations, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
Ignoring the dice owns. Fudging numbers owns. I am not going to have a session ruined because some idiot thug happened to roll unbelievably well and hit one of the PCs right in the eye. I am not going to derail an entire campaign because the players all have hot dice and accidentally win the Battle of Hoth. 'Wow this threat is truly incredible we must escape to find some way that it can be defeated at last' is a perfectly good hook for a story arc. Of course your players have to trust that you're not just going to screw them over for your own evil amusement but that's your goddamn problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
lighttigersoul posted:You're right, they need to trust you're going to screw them over for their own drat amusement. Exactly. If the dice happen to come up with a result that is not fun, then gently caress the dice, seriously. Most of the time I fudge things it is in the players' favour anyway. A PC getting critically wounded so his buddies have to come pull him out from under the enemies' muzzles and finish the battle without him is fun. A PC with lots of play invested in it getting outright killed is usually not fun. The PC's starship getting shot down over some horrible monster-infested swamp is fun. The starship being blown into confetti killing all aboard is not fun. If the players come up with something clever and bring a battle to an end a lot quicker than anticipated, so be it. On the other hand if the point of the scene is not supposed to be 'the big showdown' but 'ohshitrun' then there's nothing wrong with a little jiggery-pokery.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
It does tend to work better if you don't actually say "Oh gently caress me, what an utter unravelling of all my plans my plans my plans, fine, gently caress it I'm fudging the rolls try and stop me".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Pinball posted:I've got a question for the GMs out there, since I'm curious about you guys' opinions on computers at the table. When I go back to my school in fall, I'm going to be running a campaign for most or all of the school year, which I'm very excited about; the only issue is that my group tends to bring their laptops to the table. Some of them have their character sheets on their PCs, but I often end up feeling like they're just surfing the internet in between their turns instead of actually paying attention to the session. Do you guys feel that having your laptop at the table is rude, or am I just being oversensitive? I agree that you guys need to decide as a group if you want a really intensely focused game or more of a light and crunchy one and go from there. It's different if it's a game where people are expected to be in character and interacting with each other consistently than if it's a 'which villain do you punch next?' sort of deal. One former Shadowrun GM of mine went through a phase where he thought we weren't paying enough attention to backstory and briefing information so we had a couple of times where a contact gave us an important phone number or keypad combo or something. When it came time to use it if you hadn't been paying attention and said 'yeah, I call that number', he required that you be able to come up with the actual number, otherwise your character hadn't been paying attention either and you were screwed. It only took a couple of those disasters before we were all paying very close attention. Looking back on it it was kind of a passive aggressive way of dealing with it instead of just saying to the group that he spent time on this backstory and it would be nice if we paid some attention to it, but it did work!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think there's a magic trick for this. Probably just talking about it - that this game is so not fun that you don't want to play any more if it doesn't change - is going to be less hurtful than staging a mass PC suicide. If the deal is that she's learning to DM, could someone co-DM with her for a while, maybe work with her to incorporate more non-combat stuff into the campaign? Especially if she's frustrated maybe offering some help would be beneficial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
Kumo posted:Thanks for all of the advice. You're probably right that a direct conversation is a better way to go, but it's difficult to confront a well-meaning DM without hurting feelings. Well, there's no way it won't be a little difficult, but if you approach the talk from the angle of 'we want the game to be better' and not 'hey, you suck' it doesn't have to be awful. The article makes some interesting suggestions but I guess I disagree that just quietly starting another game or trying to manipulate them into being a player is a better strategy. I mean, presumably someone you've been gaming with is your friend. Just talk to your friend about what's going on. If they're completely unreceptive then you do what's necessary, but start out treating them with some respect and not trying some passive aggressive sleight of hand. I think most people would probably see through the tactic of tempting them with a cool new campaign tailored for their tastes as a player and just end up asking 'hey, uh, so I guess you didn't like me as a DM?' in the end anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
Depending how hard you want it to be to figure it out and/or how clever your players are, you could give them some visual clues to help them along. Like if the first thing they do is tap it with a hammer (too hard, but not by a great deal) it puts a ding in it. If they give it a harder whack maybe it puts a teeny scratch but no ding. If they then go up to a two handed smash with a mace it is completely unharmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
I think low lighting turns out to be more annoying than anything, and although I have used music a couple times it can also just end up being a distraction. I don't think either does that much to set a mood. The thing with the monster the PCs are not supposed to fight is that it depends very much on your players. Certain players will fixate on it and make killing it their mission, and they'll be frustrated if they can't for whatever reason. Making players think something could happen at any time is great. That will do more to create tension with most groups than meticulously describing piles of intestines or whatever. You can sort of help that along by suddenly asking which hand their character is using to open a door, or something along those lines. Now they're wondering why that's important and thinking that something awful might be about to happen. You can describe innocuous things in suspicious ways to heighten that too. Like if they ask how big a chest at the foot of the bed is you can say that it looks big enough to hide a body in. I like to describe a lot of sounds and smells as well because so much description is usually done with visual information only; it seems to kind of stick with them a bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Here's the biggest thing about horror that you'll ever need to know. Tease the players, gently caress with their expectations, never fully reveal what's happening. Because if you define the big scary thing that happens it lets a person categorize what is happening. Better that you let the thing remain a mystery because their own minds make a thing far, far scarier than you will ever have the ability to do on your won. Oh god yes this. Especially if you're playing in an established system don't ever tell them flat out what a monster is, unless they're in a position where their characters should know. "It's big, it's hairy, it smells like death" is going to be much more intimidating than "it is the monster from page 82." I had a bunch of Shadowrun players really concerned about a basement full of horrible pale human-like creatures surrounded by chewed bones and decaying meat, to the point where they were just going to avoid it completely, until a veteran player realized they were ghouls and basically no tougher than ordinary people. Tension gone in an instant, curse him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
You can also require them to land or moor the thing reasonably frequently with simple things like needing to take on fresh water. Going 'ashore' for supplies in unknown terrain could be a pretty fun sidebar adventure sort of deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
One more airship idea - you could make it relatively vulnerable to damage (e: or that its magic can be dispelled), so they can't cruise right up to the Fortress of Doom in it. They'll need to moor the sucker at a safe distance and approach overland. I am 100% with AlphaDog that it is definitely worth making this work because "The Airship Campaign" is way more memorable than "We set camp, we set guards, do I sleep in my armour" voyage #782. Unless you're really playing out wilderness survival most overland journeys are just an excuse to run into whatever cool encounters the GM has designed, and you can find reasons for the players to run into those even if they do have an airship.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Is there anyway to make travel interesting and really feel like travel? In the Fallout game I'm preparing to run, the theme of the game is pretty much going to be cross country apocalyptic road trip, I've got a road atlas that I've got all marked up with caravan routes and post-war settlements and the party is pretty much going to pick a direction or route and set forth. Is there any way to convey the feeling of long distance exploring as opposed to saying "you travel 8 days south into the Carolinas and were not attacked by raiders" or rolling random battles. I suppose I could roll random encounters and have a good portion of them be non combat? Assuming the group is into it, especially in a setting like Fallout looking for water, food and campsites can be challenges. You can also throw some physical obstacles at them like a flooded river that needs to be crossed (ford it, obviously) or (for Fallout) a collapsed bridge over a gully they need to get over somehow. It's a long book but Lonesome Dove is about a cattle drive from Texas to Montana and contains all kinds of travel related things that might inspire you. Another of McMurtry's books which is not as good, Dead Man's Walk, has a great description of just trying to get through the desert in Mexico. If the campaign is really going to be about travelling and getting the caravan from Point A to Point B then that's the kind of stuff I'd consider, although it presumes a playing group that is ok with challenges other than combat. If the caravan is just a mechanism to get them from settlement to settlement and explorable location to explorable location then I would just handwave the actual travel with some description until you'r ready to have something happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I experimented with fate, but it was still too cumbersome and rule heavy Have you tried Chronica Feudalis? That's really rules light.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Kestral posted:This is what you should tell the players. See if they get excited by the idea of exploring a wild frontier from a base of operations, or of crossing one in an epic trek toward safety. Tell them up-front you don't know what civilization is like, and that either way you'll need more time to prepare it so the game won't start in the setting equivalent of Waterdeep. To sort of pick up on this idea, if it's necessary to start them out in a frontier area, ask *them* to tell *you* how their character ended up there. That makes things more collaborative right off the bat and they may invent some backstories that you can use to help create the rest of your setting and/or use as part of the campaign down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:
I like a lot of this advice, but I would expand it using the principle of letting the players have fun. That fight with the mugger might not be Important, and your players might not want to make it Important by taking an interest in the poor wretch and trying to help him out/make him an ally. But there's another reason not to skip the fight - if your players don't want to. For some players, a big part of the fun in rolling the dice and smiting the opposition, even if it isn't the final climactic battle. They like the action scenes, getting to swing their sword or shoot the guns or whatever. For a group like that, even "unimportant" fights need to be there because that's part of what brings them to the table. For groups who don't care as much then just cutting to the mugger in a pool of blood and his own teeth is fine. Obviously could have some of each and have to balance things too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:So I've got what I think is probably a common question that I have never seen answered very well, lemme throw it out there to you guys; An info pack would work. However, what's wrong with quietly rolling him a lore check (or even just deciding that the character would know 'x') and shooting the player an email or passing a note: "Incidentally, you have been thinking about your employer and the following occurs to you" I never got a bad reaction from doing that kind of thing. Once I think a player asked how his guy knew that and I said 'well, you passed a Magic Theory test", which led to an uptick in the popularity of Magic Theory, which was an unexpected plus.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:First of all, those are great ideas. It's a combination of the one I quoted and the second one, the lower ranks weed out those who don't put on a great show or don't have what it takes to shake up the higher ranks. If they're really going to stick with this pitfighting thing for a while then an obvious storyline once they start to get comfortable to run is the NWO one. Suddenly established fighters start swearing allegiance to a new faction. Even old allies turn on them to join this new group, often at the worst possible moment. Some of the community's 'best' are suddenly in league with its 'worst'. For a while there's the uncertainty of who is secretly with the new faction, and eventually there's the question of who is behind it all - allowing you to introduce a new antagonist that they haven't anticipated. If they get really invested into the pitfighting world it could be very impactful. Basically I think if you're going to mirror pro wrestling then embrace it fully. You need polarizing characters who are walking stereotypes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
I saw a thing (it might even have been on here) for gauging players' interests that was kind of neat. The GM made a few little signs for different tones or themes that a campaign could have, like 'Comedy', 'Intrigue', 'Hack & Slash' and so on. I think there were maybe 9 in total. Then they gave each player (I think it was) 3 tokens that they could put on the ones that were of interest to them. It took basically no time at all but quickly gave a sense of what kind of thing the group was into. Another way to look at it is that if they don't care, or express that they're fine with everything, that might give you license to run whatever kind if game you're most excited about. GM enthusiasm can often be infectious. It is also possible, though, that they just really don't want to RPG at all, or maybe not this game, for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask, but does anyone have any experience running Chronica Feudalis? I've had it for a while without ever using it, and the D&D campaign I'm in (which I'm enjoying) is also making me think it over again. e: I suppose I'm asking if you found the system was fun to play and if your players picked up on the mechanics relatively quickly.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:What do you do when a player is just bad at combat? If I feel like a player is missing out on a course of action that their character would absolutely be aware of, I'll sometimes offer a skill check (or intelligence check, or whatever) to have a chance of it 'occurring to them'. Obviously they're still free to ignore it, and sometimes I've gotten a 'yes, but I didn't want to because X', but it stops me fretting over whether a player has missed something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
I would make the 'cult's' HQ look anything but stereotypically cult-y. Maybe there are lovingly tended gardens. The place is bright and airy, big windows, maybe brightly-coloured stained glass. A few visual clues that this is not the Lair of Evil might get your players thinking about something other than a tactical strike.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
To me there's two ways cults are compelling. One is playing up the idea of them being potentially everywhere. Who's in the cult? If the idea that it could be anyone gets planted, then it's effectively *everyone*. Even if the cult is in fact fairly small, sowing uncertainty about who is involved can make them into a much bigger threat in people's minds. The other is when the cult is encountered up front, and doesn't initially appear to be a cult at all. It's a charitable organization. It's a free school for troubled youth. In an RPG, something that can be a useful contact and maybe even an ally for the PCs, at first. Yes, of course we'll give you a place to stay for the night. Oh yes, of course we'll look after that important NPC for you. I listened to a podcast a while ago where someone was talking about a youth group they had belonged to for several years, and didn't even recognize was a cult until after they left it. That's the good stuff for your story - gradually uncovering the cult-y part and realizing what they've been involved in is the really good bit here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
It's also entirely plausible for a pragmatic minded villain to be very active in fighting against particular threats. Like, Dr. Doom would probably help stop Galactus eating the planet. Of course, he's gonna try to leverage it into ending up with cosmic power, but in the short term ... If your player really wants to have an 'evil cult' type background, you can also start out by working with him prior to the start of the campaign to figure out what this cult is and what it wants. Then, whatever threat you intend the campaign to be against can be *another* cult or evil dragon or whatever whose goals happen to conflict with the player-cult's goals. Evil factions aren't necessarily on the same team, after all, and if what you really want is Supreme Power then some other joker working towards that same goal is as much of a problem for you as whatever established authority already exists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:The scout bird always catches me off guard because I have to suddenly figure out what IS within a mile radius of the party and, uh, I don't usually know? If it's genuinely a situation where you don't have any encounters planned, you can just give a pretty broad brush description. 'You can see the road stretches off into the distance through farmland that gradually turns into wild meadows spotted with clumps of trees. It looks like you will reach the forest by about noon. Your owl notices typical wildlife but nothing that should be a threat.' There's a tiny bit of a trust issue here where your player needs to believe you that a non-threatening description can be taken at face value, but hopefully that's not hard to establish. It's ok to not have a detailed map of your entire game world, and probably most of the time your players will be satisfied with a nice version of 'nothing' as an answer to 'what's over the hill'? You can also definitely use this familiar scouting thing to draw attention to locations you *have* planned out. 'The owl flies around, you see the forest stretches out for miles in every direction, like an ocean of green, with the road you're traveling on as the main feature breaking it. You can expect to cross a river in another couple of hours. Probably slightly off the road to the east in your direction of travel, the spire of a ruined church sticks up through the canopy of leaves, a curious thing to find so far from settlements.' In other words, the familiar drone can become your buddy for easily throwing out encounter hooks for them. I'm sure you've thought of this, but although the owl gives some mechanical benefit in 5e, to people and creatures who pay attention to these things, it would be a pretty strange thing to see an owl out in the daylight. I'm not saying kill it all the time, but it would make sense for clever enemies to figure out what it is and get prepared in some fashion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Part of it does depend on how much your players tend to stick to the story and how much they run off on side things. For some groups, if you mention that there's an old mill on the river in the distance, they're 100% going to that mill to check it out. Some will just be focused on getting to Castle Whatthefuck and doing the mission. If it's the former, you just need to learn to be careful about throwing in flavoury details that are intended to be background until you're more comfortable improvising.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Posting this again cause I'm still drawing a blank on ways to make this upcoming combat interesting. What if you did a thing where the ritual is partially complete, so there are sections of the battlefield where you already need to make a save vs. paralysis? You could describe these as clouds of mist or something, and have them move around each turn, so the dangerous part of the terrain is consistently shifting. Then you could remove one for every x cultists that are defeated, to represent the ritual faltering.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yeah, the big issue with getting that started is that they did this in the almost literal center of secluded nowhere, so no one who wasn't eaten by a hydragoose knows they have it. Suppose I can always throw an NPC in who has a vision of the PCs or some poo poo. Right but whoever it used to belong to presumably knows (eventually) that *someone* has it, and that's enough money to not let it slide, even if it wasn't also a matter of principle (which it almost certainly is). So they will start investigating. You can send the Eberron equivalent of Anton Chigurh after them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Nobody used to have it, grew out of the mansion's half-rotted floorboards. Ah, my misunderstanding. In that case I guess it depends on how much your players/PCs want to be drug dealers, and how whoever the established drug dealers feel about intrusions on their turf.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
I have definitely come to appreciate an 'example of play' type thing towards the beginning of the book. I can't always get a sense of 'what is this thing like in action' from reading through character creation or a bunch of info about the setting, so something that provides a sense of what the game is like in motion is great to have.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2022 17:16
|
|