|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 30, 2012 8:26:19 GMT -6
Regarding GMPCs, and Must-Do/Must-Not: Since some of you still don't quite grasp what I'm on about, these are both current-GM abuse-prevention measures. For example, as GM, I would be within my power to give my GMPC (at the time), a Vorpal Holy Avenger for free, arbitrarily take away something the previous GM gave someone else, or kill off an auxiliary character I don't happen to like, etc. As I said, I don't think any of us would do any of that, out of common courtesy and a sense of general fairness, but better to have some boundaries established before there is an incident than after. Oh. Right. Sloppy GMing. Don't do that. Yeah, it kind of is too much. Those are very powerful spells to have access to at 1st level.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 8:35:42 GMT -6
Just occurred to me: wagon w/ magnificent mansion=TARDIS Sort of… Honestly, I don't think it'd be a big deal— mansion just eliminates food & shelter—maybe some "storage"—as a concern. With the cottage, it's just shelter. The tower is probably a bit much—that has "tactical implications." Not stuck on it. Just thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 30, 2012 8:51:09 GMT -6
I still think its a bit much. Starting out at 1st level with that sort of thing eliminates a lot of potential story elements. Say I decide to run an adventure that involves the characters having to struggle against seriously inclement weather - now, instead, they can just pop into their magic wagon and ride it out. That sort of magic item is something, IMO, you should have to work to obtain, not start out with.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 30, 2012 9:13:39 GMT -6
Better to have some boundaries established before there is an incident than after. This is why I suggested the pool of NPCs for all GMs vs "owned" PCs where you need to get the owner's permission to do something with. It just makes things nice and tidy. Regarding the bible: My thinking was that at the end of a GM's run, we "ratify" additions to the bible—maybe on-the-fly, if something is particularly cool and everyone wants to keep it. No need to be particularly anal about it, but we don't want the bible to get filled up with every miscellaneous detail. We could always just have a quick "summary" of the nights events in case someone needed to reference it for their session. Or we could just post that in a thread on the boards... We could say, for the sake of the "ownership" question, that anything in the bible is considered "public domain," so if you don't want to share something, don't add it? Obviously if Darth Sideous, the friendly baker is actually a super evil guy the "owned" NPC of Darth Sideous in the entry would be something like "Friendly baker guy" so if the next GM wanted to use him, the owner could say no. That way there is no secret spoiling unless people wanted to. Regarding character stuff: Not sure about the "gypsy" thing. I'm cool with the party having a wagon or some other "portable base," but I don't think we need to subject noob GMs to a large group of hangers-on. I actually think quite the opposite. It would give the GMs plenty of "public" NPCs to use if they so desire, and it is easy to "wipe the slate clean" if we need to go to a new area for whatever reason. Then there's the "social" angle to consider—if the gypsies are not well though of, it could be weird if someone wants to run a module with a lot of "royal interaction," for example. Easily solved. The royal interaction comes because the person believes there is a conspiracy and doesn't know who he can trust. He therefore talks to the strangers to help since they don't have a dog in the fight. Side note, regarding "portable base"—would it be too much to actually start with a magnificent mansion, with the caveat that it can never be sold? Or the tower. Or the cottage Just spit-balling But then why are we together besides being friends due to our mutual love of being murder hobos?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 9:38:07 GMT -6
This is why I suggested the pool of NPCs for all GMs vs "owned" PCs where you need to get the owner's permission to do something with. It just makes things nice and tidy. In the example I cited, "ownership" wasn't (always) the issue. so if the next GM wanted to use him, the owner could say no. That way there is no secret spoiling unless people wanted to. If you put him on the list, you're doing so (I presume) because you want other GMs to be able use him. If you do that, you're taking a risk that he'll be used the way you intend. If you need to prevent him from being used a certain way, don't include him. My thinking, ATM… I actually think quite the opposite. It would give the GMs plenty of "public" NPCs to use if they so desire, and it is easy to "wipe the slate clean" if we need to go to a new area for whatever reason. This goes to experience…with a large pool of NPC hangers-on like that, you're either going to use them as nothing but scenery, which is lame, or you're going to have to manage them somehow, which is a lot more work. You'll have to trust me, there… If the module you're using has the "king" call up the PCs because they're stand-up heroes, but they're part of a band of social-untouchables, you have a problem that requires some rewiring of the module's conditions. Same thing with the "minstrels"—now adventure-motivations have to be couched within some sort of "gig." Neither of them are untenable, but it's more to consider for the GM, and might be better if that condition weren't present—but then, we might just agree that it's worth the trouble? The "generic assumption" of most RPGs is that the PCs are just "good friends," or are thrown together by-way-of the job. I think we can do better than that, at least. We've done the "family' angle—works well enough, but it's been done before. I mentioned the "guild" thing. Disbanded mercs/sailors always works. Others? Ultimately, the situation just needs to keep the PCs together, looking for work, and free to move about.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 30, 2012 9:53:52 GMT -6
If you put him on the list, you're doing so (I presume) because you want other GMs to be able use him. If you do that, you're taking a risk that he'll be used the way you intend. If you need to prevent him from being used a certain way, don't include him. My thinking, ATM… I ASSumed the list would be something like [Generic NPCs] JimBob the Brave - trusted sidekick of the fighters guild Sir Stickupmybutt - leader of fighters guild, pain in the ass [Nate's NPCs] Mike Crotch - town whore Jeramiah the Retarded - wants to go to SPAAACCCCEEEEE [Rigil's NPCs] Herpy McDerpy - Impossibly slow mage etc etc So the GM knows who ze needs to ask to use a specific NPC and the general characteristics (outwardly) of them You'll have to trust me, there… NEVER! How dare you insinuate your years of actual experience trumps my flighty whims! we might just agree that it's worth the trouble? I think it is worth the trouble. Any defined 'job' or 'tendency' of the NPCs are going to restrict GMs. Make them BDHs and a session where we work with the thieves guild would be very hard to muster... we're going to have issues either way
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 10:08:40 GMT -6
Actually, being "generic," I wonder if we shouldn't just use the standard "you meet in the tavern" startup Perhaps with a Noodle Incident tie-in?
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 30, 2012 10:25:24 GMT -6
I don't care as long as we all decide soon so I can get my brain working on story decisions
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 14:04:20 GMT -6
Some Setting questions that need answering: - Resurrection? IMO, keep it as written
- Several incomplete entries in the bible that need attention, and some questions
- Elves: Avatar or LotR?
- Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans?
- Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons?
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 30, 2012 14:38:24 GMT -6
- Resurrection? IMO, keep it as written - As written
- Several incomplete entries in the bible that need attention, and some questions - Okay
- Elves: Avatar or LotR? - LotR, Avatar SUCKS
- Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans? - Combo, monsters in the fact they are more animistic, but human in the fact they have their own culture and whatnot
- Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons? - Passive
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Oct 30, 2012 17:19:36 GMT -6
Resurrection? IMO, keep it as written - keep
Elves: Avatar or LotR? - LotR
Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans? - twisted monsters who are ill tempered humans?
Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons? - if we went with multiple pantheons ...we could do a little of all...have part of them be active and meddling, and others be passive and stand offish?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 1, 2012 12:42:09 GMT -6
Some Setting questions that need answering: - Resurrection? IMO, keep it as written Sure
- Several incomplete entries in the bible that need attention, and some questions
- Elves: Avatar or LotR? Neither. They're D&D elves.
- Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans? Both
- Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons? Both
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 1, 2012 13:25:27 GMT -6
"Militia" is more likely—the "watch" tends to be a bit more random Nate no do old words/concepts good. Damn Nefarians... probably in league with those purples The king calls up the army; the barons, by oath, via their vassals, select some able-bodies to answer the call—PCs are "volunteered" Nate also no do old political structures / bureaucracy good.... Anything else? Or is it essentially good to go for... Nov 30? Actually, there's a Setting question here: Actual medievalness, or modern-in-medieval-clothing?
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 10, 2012 13:45:19 GMT -6
Resurrection? IMO, keep it as written - keep Elves: Avatar or LotR? - LotR Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans? - twisted monsters who are ill tempered humans? Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons? - if we went with multiple pantheons ...we could do a little of all...have part of them be active and meddling, and others be passive and stand offish? In regards to the above…I think that goblins/orcs should be misshapen, ill-tempered humans And the Gods should be a mix of the tampering and stand offish…have some of them refuse to help or interfere and some be meddlesome or helpful (depending on the situation, which could explain PC near death returns) like for example “Zeus refuses to get involved in the affairs of mortals, however Athena will lend a hand to the mortals when then need it, and Hades is constantly meddling in mortals lives” Side note, regarding "portable base"—would it be too much to actually start with a magnificent mansion, with the caveat that it can never be sold? Or the tower. Or the cottage Just spit-balling Yeah, it kind of is too much. Those are very powerful spells to have access to at 1st level. I agree with Rigil on this, I think giving a group of 1st level characters something like this would be akin to giving a 1st level fighter a +5 holy vorpal longsword, it’s a bit much of a relic (face it, the TARDIS would be an epic item lol) that early on in the campaign My thoughts - Use the #-of-sessions model for XP
- GMPC gets half-credit (like an absent player with a designated "second")—or full credit for an exceptional performance, as agreed upon by the group
If we do the #-of-sessions model, how would that work for GMPC…would it be just 2x as many sessions and the GMPC levels up? Along those lines, will the GM run their PC or would it be passed to the other people in the group to run? Also, with the NPC issue still in the air (I think) why not have a small pool of general use NPC’s (maybe 3-5) and then each GM can have their own NPC or two for plot purposes, and these NPC’s can potentially be used by other GM’s upon request, but without revealing the plot hooks they may represent later on, maybe just include a note of don't kill or expendable?
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 10, 2012 13:46:38 GMT -6
Actually, there's a Setting question here: Actual medievalness, or modern-in-medieval-clothing? i'm good with actual medievalness
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 10, 2012 13:55:08 GMT -6
Things Discussed that need further attentionEncounters involving Big Bad- Do we make him part of the background (ie Mortal Kombat style with the way they handled Shang Tsung and Kahn)
- Do we make him “immortal” in early encounters (beaten to near death but can always escapes in the end)
- Do we throw him in the mix and if he dies then we just move to a new Big Baddie
- Any other option that may be discussed and agreed upon
Death Status of PC - to keep from the noob GM’s having to write in new character loops in the event of PC deaths- Are we going to make the PC’s mortal with the only option of bringing the character back being Res
- Do we want to go the route of possible auto-res with additional penalties based on how the PC died (took and arrow to the knee so speed is reduced by 5ft/rd as well as penalties for any “leg related” skill or save)
- Gods step in and "save" the PC
- Any other option that may be discussed and agreed upon
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Nov 10, 2012 20:05:30 GMT -6
Things Discussed that need further attentionEncounters involving Big Bad- Do we make him part of the background (ie Mortal Kombat style with the way they handled Shang Tsung and Kahn)
- Do we make him “immortal” in early encounters (beaten to near death but can always escapes in the end)
- Do we throw him in the mix and if he dies then we just move to a new Big Baddie
- Any other option that may be discussed and agreed upon
I think that we can just throw him into the mix and if he dies then so be it. There's always a bigger fish. Plus I think it will take some time for the player to feel like they can take the BB on. Usually the natural progression of things means that there are always mini bads/other influences that have to be handled first before the BB is even approachable. This would also give the GM's/players much more freedom instead of us wondering if/when the BB is actually accessible. Things Discussed that need further attentionDeath Status of PC - to keep from the noob GM’s having to write in new character loops in the event of PC deaths- Are we going to make the PC’s mortal with the only option of bringing the character back being Res
- Do we want to go the route of possible auto-res with additional penalties based on how the PC died (took and arrow to the knee so speed is reduced by 5ft/rd as well as penalties for any “leg related” skill or save)
- Gods step in and "save" the PC
- Any other option that may be discussed and agreed upon
As I was saying last night, if I were going to run my own campaign, I would have the condition that if you character dies then you can have two options: 1) Roll a new character 2) Your character is Res-ed but you suffer a permanent penalty. This will help in character generation/storylines for GM's, it will fix the possibility that we as a party won't have enough money to res an individual (which I was never a fan of just because its my money...dammit), you won't lose a level (which I always thought was kind of silly anyway), or if someone is really attached to a character they can still keep playing. Of course we would have to decide as a group what those penalties would be. I was going to make a chart with 20 options and have that player roll a D20 and that is what your penalty would be if you decide to keep playing with that same character.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Nov 10, 2012 20:13:46 GMT -6
Some Setting questions that need answering: - Resurrection? See above
- Several incomplete entries in the bible that need attention, and some questions Working on it...TBC
- Elves: Avatar or LotR? LoTR
- Goblins & Orcs (etc): Twisted monsters or funny-looking, ill-tempered humans? I wouldn't go so far as to say they are twisted monsters but I wouldn't say that they are humans either. Let's do ill-tempered twisted humans who you wouldn't want to invite to dinner due to their lack of table manners but you wouldn't be grabbing your torches and pitchforks if you saw one on the street.
- Gods: Active or passive, meddling or stand-offish? Multiple pantheons? No pantheons?Everything...they're Gawds, so they each have their own attributes/way of doing things. Think more like the Greek pantheon
Nate no do old words/concepts good. Damn Nefarians... probably in league with those purples Nate also no do old political structures / bureaucracy good.... Anything else? Or is it essentially good to go for... Nov 30? Actually, there's a Setting question here: Actual medievalness, or modern-in-medieval-clothing? Actual medievalness
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 10, 2012 20:20:05 GMT -6
"Actual medievalness" is pretty difficult to pull off. Female characters would not adventure, alignment should pretty much be thrown out entirely or replaced with "Varying degrees of scumbucketry" especially if you're of noble birth, and so on, which is why I tend toward "Fantasy Medievalness"...
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 10, 2012 21:35:21 GMT -6
"Actual medievalness" is pretty difficult to pull off. Female characters would not adventure, alignment should pretty much be thrown out entirely or replaced with "Varying degrees of scumbucketry" especially if you're of noble birth, and so on, which is why I tend toward "Fantasy Medievalness"... good point, lets go with Fantasy Medievalness
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 11, 2012 14:22:59 GMT -6
- I do agree with the general consensus to delay defining characters/setting stuff until it needs to be defined—I only want to define the "basics" that people need to be aware of to make decisions about what to GM
- The Overlord will be a feature of my run—#2, IIRC—so he (and his entourage) does need to be defined
- My pref: The main NPCs of the setting should have "story immunity" from death—but that doesn't mean they can't be "killed," just that they come back anyway, didn't actually die, had a clone, etc.
- The gods can wait to be defined later—divine magical concerns cannot, though I presume we take the "generic" approach, that divine magic is just another form of spellcasting
- I really don't think you can make the case of having a super-tent (Magnificent Mansion, etc) would be unbalancing, exept that it removes the food/shelter motivation from the game—which is something that we typically ignore anyway. That said, it was just a thought, and I really don't care. I will speak no more of it.
- "Fantasy Medievalness" comes in a couple of varieties, at least. Standard D&D approach is more-or-less "historical" with allowances for magic and nonhuman races. There's also the modern-in-medieval-clothing type—trying to think of an example…I'll get back to you. Could always be a bit of both, as well.
- As with the previous point, there are multiple interpretations of "generic" WRT the standard Fantasy races—hence the question. I guess the "elves" and "goblins/orcs" questions are really the same: are they basically just like humans, with different looks and customs, or are they truly alien? The consensus, thus far, seems to be the former
- My pref: WRT resurrection, just stick to the existing rules; no house-ruling
- My pref: WRT lethality, the real question is whether or not we, as Players, should expect to be killed (which might be the case if we were playing Temple of Elemental Evil or something), or expect the GM to go to some lengths to prevent it, as it normally goes—that's what needs to be decided, and will affect all GMs. I say we should let the cookies crumble, and adapt if we need to—it'll be a good exercise for the noob-GMs to deal with PC death when it inevitably arrives.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 11, 2012 16:59:15 GMT -6
As always, I'm not keen on player character death because of shitty dice rolls. I'd much prefer it come out of the story and not cause I rolled a dozen 1's in a row or the GM critted me with a fucking rat. That's JMHO...
In your case, with regards to the Overlord, why can't we just have staggering levels of Overlordness? For example, we start out and the Overlord is effectively Bob the Evil Asshole, who obeys the Witch-King of Angmar ... who happens to answer to Sauron, and so on?
I guess it really depends on what you're thinking of doing during your run. You mentioned doing a babysitting mission straight out of the Fellowship of the Rings ... well, that's cool but maybe the Big Bad in that case could be the aforementioned Witch-King? Need to introduce his beautiful but evil daughter? Go ahead ... if she survives but WKoA doesn't, we can later find out that she wasn't his kid but rather Sauron's little girl who was hanging with WKoA for some reason...
I guess it just depends on what you're planning on doing...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 11, 2012 18:26:14 GMT -6
This is precisely why we need to be having this discussion—at this point, I doubt any one of us is on the same page WRT the BBEG.
My original concept (which has generated no debate so far) was that there would be one over-arching BBEG throughout the campaign (using the Evil Overlord List model), with a handful of named, top-level flunkies; the BBEG would not necessarily be directly featured in any one adventure, but whatever pie there is would have Nefaria's fingers in it. In my first run, I intended to "formally introduce" him (providing N8 did not).
If this doesn't work for everyone, we need to talk it out.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 11, 2012 19:55:38 GMT -6
i'm good with the head BBEG, and then there being Lt's under him that we may or may not interact with...but i'm a little lost on what WRT means....and something tells me i'll facepalm upon the reveal of the answer
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Nov 12, 2012 10:43:59 GMT -6
This is precisely why we need to be having this discussion—at this point, I doubt any one of us is on the same page WRT the BBEG. My original concept (which has generated no debate so far) was that there would be one over-arching BBEG throughout the campaign (using the Evil Overlord List model), with a handful of named, top-level flunkies; the BBEG would not necessarily be directly featured in any one adventure, but whatever pie there is would have Nefaria's fingers in it. In my first run, I intended to "formally introduce" him (providing N8 did not). If this doesn't work for everyone, we need to talk it out. I had thought that this was already accepted because it is the more logical progression of things. That's why there hasn't been much discussion on this topic. If he really is a BBEG then he's going to have minions we need to go through first, and he can be the puppet master pulling the strings until the final show down. Also I think on Friday we need to take maybe an hour or so to hammer out the last bit of details. The boards are good for getting the major chunk of discussion but things can get lost in the myriad of posts. i'm good with the head BBEG, and then there being Lt's under him that we may or may not interact with...but i'm a little lost on what WRT means....and something tells me i'll facepalm upon the reveal of the answer WRT= with regards to. You may now facepalm
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 12, 2012 11:03:14 GMT -6
Also I think on Friday we need to take maybe an hour or so to hammer out the last bit of details. The boards are good for getting the major chunk of discussion but things can get lost in the myriad of posts. WRT= with regards to. You may now facepalm I agree, whether it before actually getting to the game, or once we've finished for the night, we need to have another discussion like we did, but with all involved and either someone take notes or have a better memory than I do....and with that being said...now I address the serious issue... *FACEPALM* ...we now return you to the forum already in progress...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 12, 2012 11:05:17 GMT -6
I don't feel like I've communicated the problem effectively, yet. I'll try another angle…
If we accept that there will be a single BBEG responsible for all the Evil™ done in and to Generica, his motivations and general nature need to be defined, so that he can be properly threaded into the adventure(s) (fore or background). If N8 starts out with a Sauron-type, serious and world-ending Evil™, and then I end up with a Dr. Evil plot to kidnap all the puppies in the land, we have a real "disconnect." This is the point of having a campaign bible, to provide those definitions and boundaries for the important, shared elements that all GMs will be using.
If everyone's Evil Plot revolves around a single BBEG, distantly or directly—which, again, hasn't been contested—we need to make sure we're on the same page WRT his motivations, capabilities, and tone.
So, the first question to answer is, "Are we actually on the same page, that there is a single BBEG behind all the Evil™ that's going to occur?"
If so, the next question we need to answer is, "What sort of BBEG is he?"
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 12, 2012 11:37:06 GMT -6
I don't feel like I've communicated the problem effectively, yet. I'll try another angle… If we accept that there will be a single BBEG responsible for all the Evil™ done in and to Generica, his motivations and general nature need to be defined, so that he can be properly threaded into the adventure(s) (fore or background). If N8 starts out with a Sauron-type, serious and world-ending Evil™, and then I end up with a Dr. Evil plot to kidnap all the puppies in the land, we have a real "disconnect." This is the point of having a campaign bible, to provide those definitions and boundaries for the important, shared elements that all GMs will be using. If everyone's Evil Plot revolves around a single BBEG, distantly or directly—which, again, hasn't been contested—we need to make sure we're on the same page WRT his motivations, capabilities, and tone. So, the first question to answer is, "Are we actually on the same page, that there is a single BBEG behind all the Evil™ that's going to occur?" If so, the next question we need to answer is, "What sort of BBEG is he?" so we're needing to outline BBEG's motivation (something like, he's trying to collect all the shards of a fabled sword/crystal, so that once they're re combined, he will be granted ultimate power) and we need to figure out if he is the "throw me a firckin bone here" or is he "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die <insert evil maniacal laugh>" type i like the idea of more of the tyrannical evil that is responsible for every evil doer in the realm and lean more toward the "expect you to die" type not sure if this helps or if i'm way off the mark
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 12, 2012 11:55:10 GMT -6
so we're needing to outline BBEG's motivation (something like, he's trying to collect all the shards of a fabled sword/crystal, so that once they're re combined, he will be granted ultimate power) and we need to figure out if he is the "throw me a firckin bone here" or is he "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die <insert evil maniacal laugh>" type… I don't think we need to be that specific about his goals—whether or not he's collecting Evil artifacts can change from adventure to adventure, easily enough (unless we want to give him an over-arching goal like that). It would be helpful to determine if he's just after Ultimate Power™ in general, or he's trying to take over the world, or just get revenge on Generica, just want to be loved, etc. Otherwise, you're on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 12, 2012 12:17:58 GMT -6
Yay for being on the right track...now, if only i'd gotten on the right train...
|
|