General Discussion Thread VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad



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

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.

Note that the text you quoted says this will happen "when the [current] adventure ends". As a DM, you have the option to not let it end until the matter is resolved. I'm just saying that if you decide not to resolve it, the NPC(s) should return to the players 'control' once more.

Or, you ask the player if it would be OK to start up a new adventure with this as the new theme. I'm sure most players would not mind. After all, the player evolves, so why shouldn't his background and the people "around him".
 

rln said:
Note that the text you quoted says this will happen "when the [current] adventure ends". As a DM, you have the option to not let it end until the matter is resolved. I'm just saying that if you decide not to resolve it, the NPC(s) should return to the players 'control' once more.

Or, you ask the player if it would be OK to start up a new adventure with this as the new theme. I'm sure most players would not mind. After all, the player evolves, so why shouldn't his background and the people "around him".
What happens if the adventure ends in failure, though?
 

Just to chime in, I agree with Rystill's interpretation. I think there does need to be some level of consent (private message to player that so-and-so action will open that NPC for use in the adventure, but not necessarily any details.), but once that is given I think the DM should be free to follow through with the concequences of the actions.

As a clarification, I don't think it would be a good idea for the DM to plan on doing this kind of thing, but in practice it's pretty much impossible to tell if it was premeditated or accidental.
 

As a clarification, I don't think it would be a good idea for the DM to plan on doing this kind of thing, but in practice it's pretty much impossible to tell if it was premeditated or accidental.
Yup, absolutely. The GM in the lich example probably wanted to dominate an NPC that the party was supposed to meet in the next part of the adventure but didn't because of the teleported necklace.
 

Well for what its worth, I've been creatively motivated of late, and have drawn up my next adventure. I'm basically planning to run the old 1E adventure: L2-Assassin's Knot, which I've long had a fondness for, but never run. It fits into my general Monemvassia theme & I've modified it accordingly, w/help from a 3E conversion from our own Steve Jung(?). It's really for level 3 to 5 PCs. Not many of them in the tavern now, so I'm not submitting the proposal yet. Orsal, are you following this thread? If Nurlan is interested, I might use him as the hook once we're ready to start.

To get all this done, I did have to formalize my Monemvassia description, which I have finally done in the atlas and almanac thread.
 

Neat. Glad to see someone's getting some use out of a conversion of mine. :) Guess Charlarn won't be eligible. :p By the way, nice description of Monemvassia. How tall does the boulder rise about sea level? You have King Crassu as a Ari2/Sor2 in an early paragraph, but Ari2/Sor4 in the NPC writeups.
 

I don't know that anything says you have to run an adventure immediately after having it approved. You might want to submit it for aproval now and then you can just run with it as soon as you have players.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top