Skipping time - "... and then six months later..."

[Hypersmurf]

I'm running a short three-session one-shot while our DM takes a few weeks off.

New characters, new setting, no campaign continuity to worry about.

The 'hook' I've been planning on using is having the PCs start the first session in prison, and they are summoned to a clandestine meeting with a city councillor; he can get the charges against them dropped, if they agree to perform a task for him...

Some six months earlier, there had been a rash of killings in the city - there was a werewolf loose and running rampant. The city offered a reward; my initial thought was to open the one-shot by saying that the PCs had tracked it down and killed it... only to discover when it reverted to human form on death that it was the son of some eminent, rich, powerful citizen. Instead of being rewarded for slaying the dangerous lycanthrope, they were instead imprisoned for murder... with no public recognition that the man in question was the werewolf. The councillor, therefore, is offering to prove their claim that the man they killed was the werewolf, which will simultaneously clear them of the murder charge and embarrass a political rival.

However, I'm thinking now - instead of opening the game in the prison cell... why not open it in a back alley in the city, under a full moon, with the werewolf in hybrid form backed into the dead end... turning to face the PCs and fight its way out.

Resolve the combat... then cut to six months later in the prison cell, with a little exposition to explain the events that put them there.

I like the idea of starting the session in media res with a combat. There's always the possibility that they might not kill him, but I figure if that happens, the werewolf can show up dead anyway, and the PCs can get framed for it... given that their weapons will have his blood all over them.

Anyway, I was going somewhere with this...

... ah, right. How do people feel in general about the idea of skipping time like this? Being told "And then you were captured, and arrested, and tried, and imprisoned" without these details actually being played out? Does it make a difference when it's at the very beginning of a game like this, rather than in the middle of a long campaign?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Starting a game in prison is not usually a problem. The capture becomes a part of the general scenario background, which is generally accepted to be the DM's domain (although verisimilitude may be compromised if the PCs are way more powerful than the authorities, but that doesn't seem to be a problem here). It's when people try to play out the details of the capture that it becomes a problem. This is because it then becomes part of the game itself, and metagame issues like freedom of action, railroading, player empowerment, etc come into the picture.

Skipping time is also good. There's no point playing out six months of nothing happening. I think what you're saying is that you'll start the game with the fight, then cut to _six months prior_, and play out the bit where they get released from jail? That sounds fine, if slightly confusing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Skipping time is also good. There's no point playing out six months of nothing happening. I think what you're saying is that you'll start the game with the fight, then cut to _six months prior_, and play out the bit where they get released from jail?

No - start the game with the fight, wherein the werewolf (presumably) gets killed.

Switch to exposition mode. PCs are charged with murder, tried, convicted, locked up.

Skip six months.

PCs are released from jail, and the actual adventure (nothing to do with the werewolf) begins.

The fight was originally just going to be part of the exposition - "You're in jail for killing someone six months ago."

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I think that gets a bit iffy. After the fight, you're already in the middle of the adventure, and so the issues mentioned above become relevant. It's not as bad as if you were actually playing out the nitty gritty of being captured, but it's close. If your players are fine with it, then go ahead, but it sounds risky to me.

What you could do is tell the players right at the start, that their PCs start the game in jail. Then play out the meeting with the councillor, including the bit where he tells them about the werewolf. _Then_ play out the fight with the werewolf. To make it more than just funky mind games, you could have them notice something seemingly innocuous about the werewolf... and then, in present day, the councillor mentions that as a clue.

Eh, nonlinear chronology. Makes my head hurt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think that gets a bit iffy. After the fight, you're already in the middle of the adventure, and so the issues mentioned above become relevant.

Right. That's the question I started the thread to ask

To make it more than just funky mind games, you could have them notice something seemingly innocuous about the werewolf... and then, in present day, the councillor mentions that as a clue.

Except again, the werewolf actually has nothing to do with the adventure. If it were an ongoing campaign, the werewolf would have been the BBEG of the last adventure. So there aren't really any clues to worry about - they found the werewolf, they killed him, and later found out that he had a high-powered family with bigger, nastier lawyers than them...

The simplest way to avoid the issue - since the werewolf isn't actually 'relevant' to the adventure - is to go with my original plan of just having the whole werewolf-hunt and fight be background description.

But I'm thinking the fight itself could be cool, especially since much of the first session will be detective-work without a whole lot of action...

-Hyp.

 

[S'mon]

I like the idea of starting the session in media res with a combat. There's always the possibility that they might not kill him, but I figure if that happens, the werewolf can show up dead anyway, and the PCs can get framed for it...

As a player this - we subdue werewolf but the 'Plot' kills him anyway - would annoy the Hell out of me, it would smack of extreme railroading. I think it's important not to run _anything_ that requires only one possible outcome (dead werewolf). I much prefer your initial plan - start with werewolf already dead and PCs in jail, then they start "off the rails" and are free to determine their own destinies from that point.

 

[Sejs]

Personally, I would start the game just after the fight against the werewolf finished, with the PCs standing over the corpse as it turns back into a person. Removes the thing that S'mon touched on - if the PCs subdue the werewolf, but then having him die anyway.


PCs, standing in an alleyway, hurt, banged up, low on spells, etc. Corpse on the ground. PCs standing over it, getting their wits back about them after the fight that just ended, seconds before. Then, "The events that lead you up to this point are crystal clear in your mind as you look to your companions in the gathering darkness. The killings that terrorized X Town. The Grand Poobah's plan. The man that hired you. How everything seemed so simple and straight forward, up until this point..." And just run things back as a flashback-within-a-flashback, describing how they got to the point where they are now, over the dead wolfman. Then jump 'em forward the 6 months.

Heck, maybe if you like, add in a description of how they tried to take the guy alive, but he just wouldn't go down. Broke grapples, his DR laughing off most subdual dmg, and so forth. So at least they can feel satisfied that, had they tried to do things that way, the base is covered. They tried taking him alive - it just didn't work.

 

[Daniel Knight]

Wow. Am I the only one who loves this concept? It's like Indiana Jones or Van Helsing, both starting with a huge action sequence - and then getting to the exposition later. Very filmic - and probably perfect for Eberron.

Personally, I'd go for it Hypersmurf. As a player, I'd love it.

 

[fba827]

I have to say it depends on the players in question.

I know I'm usually game for whatever scenario and then running with the flow. I know some players in my own games, however, that would be a bit miffed if you started telling them about how they were captured and imprisoned since they would have wanted the chance to get out of being captured - such as fighting back or going into hiding.

So, again, it may require a realization about whether or not you think your players would be going with the flow... it's a matter of player preference... some probably would love it, some might not. If you're asking for how people on these boards would feel, well, as said, I would like it

If there is even a chance that some player might be annoyed, you may just want to go straight to the "its been 6 months" and skip the fight sequence since the end of that is where players may feel too "railroaded"

 

[lior_shapira]

I love the idea, I've done something a bit similiar in my campaign. After the party escaped from a well guarded orcish prison in Midnight and were feeling mighty good about themselves we stopped for that week. Next week I started the session by telling them that after their escape every orc in the surrounding areas was mobilized to search for them, they had to run for the mountains and now six months have passed in which they've been hunted ceaselessly, starving and cold...

*We switched DM's between sessions so had to create some discernible transition