|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 7, 2015 19:12:26 GMT -6
Sorry but the whole love interest thing I prefer to pass on. Why? Doing so means that, whenever you draw an appropriate card, nothing happens. And that's boring.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on May 7, 2015 21:09:26 GMT -6
Can you tweak the meaning a bit...so instead of romantic love, convert the card's meaning to sibling love instead?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 7, 2015 21:45:00 GMT -6
Siblings would be Home life which is a different card entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 7, 2015 21:57:54 GMT -6
Possible solutions: - Redefine "Romantic" as "Non-Home-Centered Relationships" to include friends/mentors/etc
- Include dealing with other people's romantic relationships, that result in introspection/reminders
- Someone is trying to interest him, but (so McN doesn't have to deal with it) always fails—maybe like Widow trying to set up Cap'n A on dates
- His sibling(s) aren't "at home" anyway
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 7, 2015 22:08:23 GMT -6
This is what the Minor Arcana currently stands for. - Cups: Romantic life
- Pentacles: Work life
- Swords: Enemies
- Wands: Home life (family, friends, neighbors, etc.)
Redefining it in that way would conflict with Pentacles and Wands which already works as the "Non-Home-Centered Relationships." Someone is trying to interest him, but (so McN doesn't have to deal with it) always fails—maybe like Widow trying to set up Cap'n A on dates For PCs who insist on basically being asexual, this is the scenario I'm mostly likely to use. TBH, I don't quite understand what the problem is here - look at the D&D game. Would our characters really be as driven to rescue Lavinia if Mazrim wasn't romantically attached to her? Yeah, we'd probably be trying to rescue her but we wouldn't be as driven. Besides, it's not like I'm going to spend a session describing how a PC scores. Hence my confusion in the resistance toward even offering any suggestions there...
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on May 8, 2015 14:07:18 GMT -6
I don't have an issue with it. I'm perfectly fine with Sophia shacking up with some hunk of a fae (or something like that). Honestly, it might do her some good. I was just trying to find a solution that would work for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 8, 2015 14:18:57 GMT -6
TBH, I don't quite understand what the problem is here - look at the D&D game. Some people think the sex-scene in the middle of the action movie is wasted time that could be used for more shooting. McN's kinda always fallen into that camp, I think. Unless it's Shoot 'Em Up, in which case they combine the sex-scene with the shooting. Efficient
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on May 8, 2015 14:31:51 GMT -6
Unless it's Shoot 'Em Up, in which case they combine the sex-scene with the shooting. Efficient Huh, that sounds kind of hot...
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 8, 2015 14:37:38 GMT -6
TBH, I don't quite understand what the problem is here - look at the D&D game. Some people think the sex-scene in the middle of the action movie is wasted time that could be used for more shooting. McN's kinda always fallen into that camp, I think. Yeah, I can understand that mindset. Most of the time, that particular scene is wasted time - I just wanted to highlight that the characters actually have lives. I have no problem with someone not being interested in this sort of aspect - I just wanted to know why he thought that way. Wasn't trying to say he was wrong or anything; just curious. Plus, "love interests" give the GM more tools!
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 8, 2015 15:02:57 GMT -6
I think, as a storyteller, I would use the "romance" opportunity to focus on his lack of it, or ineptitude at it
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 8, 2015 15:09:41 GMT -6
Still haven't seen your responses, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by Magman on May 9, 2015 18:20:59 GMT -6
As a player that is something that just doesn't interest me in the rpg, it is also something that could be excluded in most movies and books (Just get on with the story) and never be missed unless it is relevant to the story as a whole as far as I am concerned. To each is own.
Just guidelines to follow as rules in any rpg.
Then just double my chances for enemies or work, the story as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 10, 2015 10:39:34 GMT -6
[Han Solo Voice] All right, ya big chicken.[/Han Solo Voice] No worries. So, I've got Magman's response regarding both the romance thing (boo! hiss! ) and what he'll do to make the deal. I'm working offline with Giger & LabRat re: love interests for their respective characters, and MikeE gave me some direction via PM, but I would still like the trigger for the deal from them if possible. WxMAN and Budah can chime in should they actually believe they're going to be able to return at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 27, 2015 20:21:06 GMT -6
"What event or sequence of events would lead your character to making a (metaphorical) deal with the devil?" I think what's been tripping me up regarding the answer to this question is that it wouldn't ever actually be a single moment—it'd be a "frog boil"; slow, little-by-little
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jun 6, 2015 16:47:59 GMT -6
Totally a cheat answer.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jun 8, 2015 15:10:33 GMT -6
Totally a cheat answer. But it is a more practical and more realistic answer, for sure
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jun 8, 2015 15:10:47 GMT -6
Totally a cheat answer. But it is a more practical and realistic answer, for sure
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 30, 2015 14:55:01 GMT -6
Looks like all four PCs will be available, which is going to be very interesting considering the direction my revisions were taking me...
Revised adventure blurb:
|
|
|
Post by Magman on Dec 30, 2015 20:09:45 GMT -6
So WxMan will be playing?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 30, 2015 20:28:05 GMT -6
Yup
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Dec 30, 2015 21:38:02 GMT -6
For good or for ill?
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 4, 2016 14:23:38 GMT -6
Am I the only one infinitely sad that Grim and Grum won't be joining us during this Arc?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 4, 2016 15:27:42 GMT -6
Wouldn't be the same without SQ anyway
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 6, 2016 11:50:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 6, 2016 14:06:15 GMT -6
Nice!
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 6, 2016 14:09:17 GMT -6
A thought just crossed my mind. Granted I don't know the logistics but if Sofia is helping Lee and Carter on their case (and she's going to have to go to Mexico to do it) does that mean she can work out some sort of Retainer agreement?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 6, 2016 22:58:47 GMT -6
A thought just crossed my mind. Granted I don't know the logistics but if Sofia is helping Lee and Carter on their case (and she's going to have to go to Mexico to do it) does that mean she can work out some sort of Retainer agreement? That is something you'll have to work out with them. They'd definitely have to pay it out of their own pockets since this isn't going to be an 'on-the-books' case. See what happens when both LEOs are "maverick cops"?
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 7, 2016 8:55:55 GMT -6
A thought just crossed my mind. Granted I don't know the logistics but if Sofia is helping Lee and Carter on their case (and she's going to have to go to Mexico to do it) does that mean she can work out some sort of Retainer agreement? That is something you'll have to work out with them. They'd definitely have to pay it out of their own pockets since this isn't going to be an 'on-the-books' case. See what happens when both LEOs are "maverick cops"? Ah, okay. I forgot that it was off the books. Nevermind, then. We can be mavericks together.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 7, 2016 11:30:03 GMT -6
You can still make them pay for "expenses."
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 7, 2016 12:09:24 GMT -6
You can still make them pay for "expenses." Already thought of it, there is no way Sofia would have enough money for a plane ticket, room and board, etc.
|
|