Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7322427" data-attributes="member: 23935">They could be established by fiat.&nbsp; I tend to build small mechanical systems to help determine engagement, agenda, and success in achieving goals outside the party's view.&nbsp; I find it easier to have some outcome-based resolution systems to rely on when updating the current situation.Harry's appearance, background, and motivations were authored (I wanted a pretty straight rip-off of Kolchak).&nbsp; His involvement at the start of a situation is authored as part of my situation construction: where he is, what he knows, what he wants to do next.&nbsp; Depending on the situation, I may have created a trajectory to evolve the situation in the absence of player input.&nbsp; Outside that course, his actions and reactions depend in a large part&nbsp; on PC action.&nbsp; Persistent information (his health status, his attitude toward the PCs as a group and individually, his possessions, what knowledge he's gained, any obligations or favours he's earned) are tracked and should affect any future appearance.When the PCs first encountered him, he was working on an investigation peripheral to the PCs primary mission.&nbsp; The PCs stumbled onto clues pointing to his monster, but couldn't figure out how those tied in with what they were working on (it did, but the puzzle was quite large and they had few pieces at that time).&nbsp; Harry completed his investigation and took care of the problem without the PCs direct involvement as they took a direct course for their own investigation.&nbsp; Although they knew he was the reporter sniffing around and getting underfoot with their investigation, I don't think any of the players ever worked out he was responsible for the arson that destroyed potential evidence (i.e. killed the creature they didn't know was there).&nbsp; His later appearances have shown him to have greater depths, but they've never asked about that first mission.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7322427, member: 23935"] They could be established by fiat. I tend to build small mechanical systems to help determine engagement, agenda, and success in achieving goals outside the party's view. I find it easier to have some outcome-based resolution systems to rely on when updating the current situation. Harry's appearance, background, and motivations were authored (I wanted a pretty straight rip-off of Kolchak). His involvement at the start of a situation is authored as part of my situation construction: where he is, what he knows, what he wants to do next. Depending on the situation, I may have created a trajectory to evolve the situation in the absence of player input. Outside that course, his actions and reactions depend in a large part on PC action. Persistent information (his health status, his attitude toward the PCs as a group and individually, his possessions, what knowledge he's gained, any obligations or favours he's earned) are tracked and should affect any future appearance. When the PCs first encountered him, he was working on an investigation peripheral to the PCs primary mission. The PCs stumbled onto clues pointing to his monster, but couldn't figure out how those tied in with what they were working on (it did, but the puzzle was quite large and they had few pieces at that time). Harry completed his investigation and took care of the problem without the PCs direct involvement as they took a direct course for their own investigation. Although they knew he was the reporter sniffing around and getting underfoot with their investigation, I don't think any of the players ever worked out he was responsible for the arson that destroyed potential evidence (i.e. killed the creature they didn't know was there). His later appearances have shown him to have greater depths, but they've never asked about that first mission. [/QUOTE]

Verification