General Discussion Thread VIII

[azmodean]

heh, when I saw "don't start any bickering", I had to go check my latest post, because I had considered leaping to the defense of death penalties, and in fact typed a bit up, but then decided that this isn't the place for it. (but how did KO know? )

 

[Rystil Arden]

heh, when I saw "don't start any bickering", I had to go check my latest post, because I had considered leaping to the defense of death penalties, and in fact typed a bit up, but then decided that this isn't the place for it. (but how did KO know? )

Superneutral mind reading powers, clearly

Ah, well at least I'm happy that I am now officially guaranteed not to be the first GM to kill a player ever in ENWorld!

 

[Patlin]

Ah, well at least I'm happy that I am now officially guaranteed not to be the first GM to kill a player ever in ENWorld!

I suppose that means I am forever saddled with that distinction.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I suppose that means I am forever saddled with that distinction.

Were it not for a retcon because the GM made Bront's character Juliana do something he didn't say for her to do (charge a guy with a guisarme), it wouldn't have been you

 

[Bront]

I suppose that means I am forever saddled with that distinction.

You might be the first GM to actualy kill a character and have him stay dead. Not sure if that makes you feel better...

 

[Patlin]

You might be the first GM to actualy kill a character and have him stay dead. Not sure if that makes you feel better...

I'm hoping he won't stay dead for too long, that's why I asked about the ressurection rules in LEW.

 

[Velmont]

Just to tell that there shouldn't always be an option to death once it happen. I mean, ok, there should always be a way to escape death, but once a character died, it should be normal that it is not easy, see impossible to have it back, or where would be the challenge of the adventure?

Make ressurection impossible shouldn't a regular rule, but if the guy falled in a lava pit, well, just too bad! Or if the group want to travel to a far land and spend 25000 gp to have a True ressurection to have that character back, that could be a possibility.

 

[azmodean]

people are trying to kick-start the death and retirement thread again, so you might want to chime in there Velmont.

 

[rln]

Sorry if you're fed up with this subject already

Information in a characters BACKGROUND is considered PRIVATE unless the player of the character chooses to declare it PUBLIC by stating so.

In my opinion, if a player uses background information and NPCs in a game, that information should be considered public for the current adventure, as long as the DM posts a note to that effect to make sure that the player is aware of it.

In the example, this means that when the player sends necklace away, the DM says, "OOC: By doing this you make Helena public for this adventure. Is that OK with you?" The player then has the option to back out and not send the necklace, or allow the DM to expand the adventure to include what happens with Helena. Or even make a new adventure with this as the main theme (though that'd require the players consent once more).

Even if the DM doesn't want to expand the adventure, the characters background (Helena in the example) might still have changed. I think most players would like it if their NPCs were used as plot hooks, but just like all things borrowed, you should try to leave it back in the same way it was when you borrowed it. When the adventure ends, the player receives "control" of the NPC again, and can evolve it as he wishes - for example, write that her maid called a cleric, who managed to thwart the enchantment.

Ogrins background is public (except for one little piece of information) and if someone would want to create a future adventure where he's hunted by the friend and/or the apprentices of the murdered mesmerizing magician, noone would be happier than me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm never tired of it. I agree with you except for one thing:

but just like all things borrowed, you should try to leave it back in the same way it was when you borrowed it. When the adventure ends, the player receives "control" of the NPC again, and can evolve it as he wishes - for example, write that her maid called a cleric, who managed to thwart the enchantment.

Having some deus ex machina maid would really thwart the entire point of the adventure and make it seem like the PCs didn't matter--oh well, they failed but everything is OK anyway because it has to go back to normal as part of the background. This is also somewhat impossible if the necklace had something irreversible like death magic on it instead of a lich possession, for instance.