Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5040132" data-attributes="member: 386">There isn't anything that I need or want to happen next.All I really want is for the players to make meaningful decisions.&nbsp; Their choices drive play.&nbsp; That means that there have to be consequences from the decisions that they make.Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden.&nbsp; Instead they muscle out the merchant who's building a logging camp and run it for themselves.There are natural consequences of that action: the merchant might have friends who are willing to fight for him to reclaim the logging camp, anyone who's interested in keeping the status quo will see their violent actions as a threat, elves might get pissed off, a dryad might attack the loggers, the PCs get a steady influx of cash, they have guys who support the PCs (since they are providing them with jobs), they have guys whom they need to support (oh no, there's no more booze, the loggers are getting restless), they make ties with other places that need lumber, caravans have to deal with them, etc.But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt?&nbsp; What happens there?&nbsp; This seems to be trickier.And what if you've got a number of &quot;necromancers&quot; wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up?&nbsp; How many of these guys is too many?&nbsp; How many is too few?&nbsp; How does the scale of their plots (from &quot;I want to take over my neighbour's farm&quot; to &quot;Let the world burn&quot;) feed into that?You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 5040132, member: 386"] There isn't anything that I need or want to happen next. All I really want is for the players to make meaningful decisions. Their choices drive play. That means that there have to be consequences from the decisions that they make. Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden. Instead they muscle out the merchant who's building a logging camp and run it for themselves. There are natural consequences of that action: the merchant might have friends who are willing to fight for him to reclaim the logging camp, anyone who's interested in keeping the status quo will see their violent actions as a threat, elves might get pissed off, a dryad might attack the loggers, the PCs get a steady influx of cash, they have guys who support the PCs (since they are providing them with jobs), they have guys whom they need to support (oh no, there's no more booze, the loggers are getting restless), they make ties with other places that need lumber, caravans have to deal with them, etc. But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt? What happens there? This seems to be trickier. And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that? You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification