Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7341047" data-attributes="member: 82106">Its also a quite common technique in actual use, and endorsed by no less than EGG, amongst many others. In later times it has come to be seen as less desirable, but still quite heavily utilized in many games. To be quite honest vanilla 5e doesn't really give you much support for alternatives, though there are some optional rules that kind of help a bit, and obviously GMs/tables can incorporate any technique they want. As for the line between introducing elements and world building, yes, it isn't really a line, its a continuum and thus I don't really think it makes too much sense to dwell heavily on the middle of that range. The extremes are interesting though.Right, I wanted to construct it as the kind of example that would work well in a variety of games. If I framed it as "some NPC that has a grudge against the party stemming from stuff that happened years ago frames them for assassinating/attempting to assassinate the king and..." that would fit fine within the 'domino theory', but it would obviously involve 'hidden backstory' (assuming the players had no way of discovering the plot and no inkling that they might even need to be wary of such). So we have again probably a continuum, and that illustrates how there aren't really totally distinct practices of play (as opposed to theories). Agreed. In my formulation, the players chose the wager. The GM framed the situation in some degree "As you contemplate the various ways to thwart the King's evil plans you recall your contacts with the Assassin's Guild." (maybe this is narrated as the result of a check or in HoML it would simply be part of an interlude, since nothing is yet at stake). Once they've committed and the challenge is afoot then any consequences are theirs to bear. I have no problem with this. They fail the challenge and soldiers show up at their door! 4e/HoML handle this quite easily.Yeah, I think the SC (HoML General Challenge) system of 4e is fine with this. The fictional position is one of pulling the strings from the shadows. Part of the consequences of a significant enough failure is that the shadows are drawn away and the puppet master is revealed. It could be that there are lesser possibilities in a range. Failing after several successes might result in being forced to leave town to avoid being unmasked, or being forced to frame one of your allies to take the fall in your place. Limited success might produce similar results, the King dies but you or someone/something you value is lost, or even that you are fully revealed and your 'victory' becomes hollow or much more equivocal.If the game is one in which the players are heavily invested in the fiction and their characters then these sorts of indirect consequences work fine. In a sort of simpler setup where the PCs just cart around the setting and don't really have much concern for allies, property, allegiances, etc. then maybe a setup like this doesn't work too well. At worst there's a fight scene and otherwise perhaps the party simply moves on to some other location and doesn't look back.I'd note that I wouldn't have other people or the GM by himself 'play out' anything like an assassination. I'd simply have it either succeed or fail based on whatever the PCs did and the check results they got. If they plan it really well, hire the best guy, equip him with everything he needs, etc then things go off as planned (IE 12 successes and no failures). If there's one failure, then maybe there's clues left behind that point to the PCs, perhaps requiring them to undertake further actions to avoid being revealed, 2 failures maybe means the assassin is captured afterwards and fingers the PCs (or their agents). I never roll dice between one NPC and another, the relevant part of the game is what the players do. I guess it would be OK to have an opposing NPC roll to accomplish something that thwarts or complicates a PC action, sort of like in combat, but I don't really use that technique.</blockquote>

Verification