[3e] Questions about "City of the Spider Queen"

[Halzebier]

Hi there!

I'm thinking of buying the D&D 3e mega-module "City of the Spider
Queen" and have a few questions.

(a) Can the module survive a total party kill, i.e. is there plausible
way to get a new party to pick up the reins and still have a chance to
finish the module?

[I'd like to run this in a highly gamist fashion and with a very real
chance of defeat.]

(b) Will failure on the part of the PCs destroy the world or make it
unplayable?

[I wouldn't mind it if the PCs ultimately failed and a large-scale
catastrophe ensued, but destroying the game world would be a tad
much.]

(c) Any advice regarding the module?

[Mary mentioned that the PCs intercept a letter which suggests a
time-limit. However, the letter does not provide a date and Mary
suggested adding one.]

(d) Is the tie-in miniature set any good? What miniatures are
included?

Regards,

Hal
--
P.S.: Sadly, this place seems to be dead and this topic is unlikely to
revive it, but I thought I'd try just the same.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Halzebier
I'm thinking of buying the D&D 3e mega-module "City of the Spider
Queen" and have a few questions.
(a) Can the module survive a total party kill, i.e. is there plausible
way to get a new party to pick up the reins and still have a chance to
finish the module?

I think a TPK early on would be very recoverable, but one at
the City of the Spider Queen itself, well, it's a *long* way back
to the surface from there. You might want to lay the groundwork
deliberately, such as having the PCs contact an ally aboveground
and give him teleport info.

One issue with this module in general is that you'll want to think
about "Why is it the PCs doing this and not someone more powerful?"
This might be even more pressing after a TPK.

Post by Halzebier
[I'd like to run this in a highly gamist fashion and with a very real
chance of defeat.]

It's written to support that approach. The NPCs have reasonably
well-chosen items and spells and tactics, and can be very nasty.

Post by Halzebier
(b) Will failure on the part of the PCs destroy the world or make it
unplayable?

I think the module actually handles this very well; it describes
the outcome of the war if the PCs don't successfully intervene, and
while it's ugly, it's not out of line for things that have happened
in that area before. It wouldn't destroy the campaign world.

Post by Halzebier
(c) Any advice regarding the module?
[Mary mentioned that the PCs intercept a letter which suggests a
time-limit. However, the letter does not provide a date and Mary
suggested adding one.]

I'd either kill the time limit or provide some clean way for the
PCs to learn what it is, yes.

My player felt that the archmage's tower in the drow border town
was out of line, difficulty-wise. If he'd beaten the archmage he
would have felt it was contrived, and the alternative seemed to be
dying if the PCs ever went there.

You'll want to think about your players' likely approach to the
giants' army. If they are likely to interact with it much, you
will need to do some extra prep--this is the one place that the
module, which is mostly very detailed, really falls down. There
are random patrols and so forth but not nearly enough support for
actual engagement with the giantish force as a whole--we aren't
told how many, what kinds, where, under what leadership, or how
they'll react to trouble.

You'll want to decide if "earthquake" has any useful effect here,
too.

The module raises one big question which it does not answer. (You'll
spot it early on....) I think WotC is saving the answer for a novel,
but you will probably want to determine an answer, and think about
why it hasn't become public yet.

My player says, "Know your party very well. They're likely to be
rather specialized, and you'll want to know what they can and can't
do, to avoid unpleasant surprises. Also, you'll want to think about
why the NPCs don't use a 'teleport in with adequate force to
kill the PCs' strategy, since they use lesser forms of it several
times.

"Watch out for the 'spell matrix' spell in _Magic of Faerun_,
the one that lets you stack a bunch of quickened spells. It's
gross. Also, think hard about what 'commune' and 'contact other
plane' will do. [Mary adds: especially with regard to that
unanswered question I mentioned above!]

"If you are playing with 3.5 you will need to do a bit of
adaptation."

Post by Halzebier
P.S.: Sadly, this place seems to be dead and this topic is unlikely to
revive it, but I thought I'd try just the same.

Ain't it the truth.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Halzebier]

Hello Mary!

Thanks for your quick answer - it's good to see that some of the
regulars at least check RGFA and haven't given up on it.

[City of the Spider Queen]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I think a TPK early on would be very recoverable, but one at
the City of the Spider Queen itself, well, it's a *long* way back
to the surface from there. You might want to lay the groundwork
deliberately, such as having the PCs contact an ally aboveground
and give him teleport info.
One issue with this module in general is that you'll want to think
about "Why is it the PCs doing this and not someone more powerful?"
This might be even more pressing after a TPK.

Ack. That's a pretty big hole right there, it seems.

Would it be feasible to engineer an unrelated major crisis
above-ground to explain why Elminster & Co won't interfere?

Or does the module depend on peace (both for the civilised lands
above, the PCs' motivations and the machinations of the module's
villains)? If the initial troubles seemed too small, for instance, the
PCs would likely prefer to go to war themselves...

*-*-*

Incidentally, I'm generally pondering dungeon setups which can handle
one or even several TPKs. There are plenty of modules with
mega-dungeons around, but without the thrill of danger, I personally
do not find extended dungeon crawls very satisfying.

And 'thrill of danger' means 'a real chance of character death', which
usually entails a real chance of a TPK as well.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I'd either kill the time limit or provide some clean way for the
PCs to learn what it is, yes.

I remembered this piece of advice from the old thread because I've
encountered the issue before. The worst thing seems to be a time limit
which is ticking down without the players knowing about it. Bad
feelings all around the last time I let that happen.

[Advice regarding the giants and "earthquake"]

Thanks!

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
My player says, "Know your party very well. They're likely to be
rather specialized, and you'll want to know what they can and can't
do, to avoid unpleasant surprises. Also, you'll want to think about
why the NPCs don't use a 'teleport in with adequate force to
kill the PCs' strategy, since they use lesser forms of it several
times.

Yeah, I remember the discussion. My group's current fix is to have an
obvious re-materialization period of one round. I wonder if that's
enought, though - after all, buff spells rule the day in 3e...

Our current party (Level 16) hasn't encountered any teleport
commandos, but we're worried enough to have decided on our course of
action: teleport to base, immediately.

(Then buff and teleport back. Woe to any enemies still hanging around
with their haste spells on the verge of running out.)

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
"Watch out for the 'spell matrix' spell in _Magic of Faerun_,
the one that lets you stack a bunch of quickened spells. It's
gross. Also, think hard about what 'commune' and 'contact other
plane' will do. [Mary adds: especially with regard to that
unanswered question I mentioned above!]

That raises another question: Will a normal, non-Faerun party be able
to handle this? The Faerun material (which I do not own) offers very
powerful prestige-classes, spells and items...

(I understand that I'll have to have a cleric of Mystara (sp?) in any
case, but other than that I wasn't planning on using Faerun
characters. The idea is to create appropriate characters and jump
right in, without bothering about the realms more than is necessary
for playing the module.)

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
"If you are playing with 3.5 you will need to do a bit of
adaptation."

Yep. The haste-fix alone will probably nerf lone NPCs.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Halzebier
P.S.: Sadly, this place seems to be dead and this topic is unlikely to
revive it, but I thought I'd try just the same.

A minor correction: I did not expect to revive discussion here with
such a specialized question, I just posted here on general principle.

Incidentally, there is polite and well thought-out discussion at the
Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/). They're a bit dogmatic, but so was
RGFA. =)

John H. Kim is a regular there these days and I suspect other RGFA
oldtimers hang out there as well (albeit under different names or as
lurkers, like me).

Regards & Many Thanks,

Hal

[Joachim Schipper]

"Halzebier" <***@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:***@4ax.com...
<snip>

Post by Halzebier

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I think a TPK early on would be very recoverable, but one at
the City of the Spider Queen itself, well, it's a *long* way back
to the surface from there. You might want to lay the groundwork
deliberately, such as having the PCs contact an ally aboveground
and give him teleport info.
One issue with this module in general is that you'll want to think
about "Why is it the PCs doing this and not someone more powerful?"
This might be even more pressing after a TPK.

Ack. That's a pretty big hole right there, it seems.
Would it be feasible to engineer an unrelated major crisis
above-ground to explain why Elminster & Co won't interfere?
Or does the module depend on peace (both for the civilised lands
above, the PCs' motivations and the machinations of the module's
villains)? If the initial troubles seemed too small, for instance, the
PCs would likely prefer to go to war themselves...
*-*-*
Incidentally, I'm generally pondering dungeon setups which can handle
one or even several TPKs. There are plenty of modules with
mega-dungeons around, but without the thrill of danger, I personally
do not find extended dungeon crawls very satisfying.
And 'thrill of danger' means 'a real chance of character death', which
usually entails a real chance of a TPK as well.

As far as TPK are concerned, wouldn't having someone out of the dungeon with
an interest in getting the job done, and the resources to check on PCs and
send in another party if necessary, help? For instance, the PCs are sent by
whatever major group you can fit into this module. They are to report back,
by Sending, once a day. If they fail to report for two days, they will be
considered MIA and another group will be sent to a location somewhere near
the original's group location.

In fact, this may even help with the 'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

<snip>

Post by Halzebier

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Halzebier
P.S.: Sadly, this place seems to be dead and this topic is unlikely to
revive it, but I thought I'd try just the same.

A minor correction: I did not expect to revive discussion here with
such a specialized question, I just posted here on general principle.
Incidentally, there is polite and well thought-out discussion at the
Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/). They're a bit dogmatic, but so was
RGFA. =)
John H. Kim is a regular there these days and I suspect other RGFA
oldtimers hang out there as well (albeit under different names or as
lurkers, like me).
Regards & Many Thanks,
Hal

Well, it seems that r.f.g.a has regular hiatuses, anyway. Occasionally
checking it doesn't hurt - if there are no posts, you simply do nothing
anyway.

Maybe this will revive the group a bit. And yes, this is not the most 'deep'
discussion I've seen here - but deep discussions had a tendency to involve
flames far too soon for my liking.

Joachim

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Joachim Schipper
As far as TPK are concerned, wouldn't having someone out of the dungeon with
an interest in getting the job done, and the resources to check on PCs and
send in another party if necessary, help? For instance, the PCs are sent by
whatever major group you can fit into this module. They are to report back,
by Sending, once a day. If they fail to report for two days, they will be
considered MIA and another group will be sent to a location somewhere near
the original's group location.

I'd be awfully inclined, if I were a PC, to ask for the backup help
*before* I died rather than afterwards. At the point where Irae is sending
daily summonings at me, probably. After all, what sense does it make to
lose your powerful people X at a time, when 2X all at once might succeed?

But it depends a lot on your players. My player is bugged by this kind
of thing, so I have to be very careful. When we ran _Attack on Myth Drannor_
the player eventually worked out--very convincingly!--that the "good guys"
were deliberately sending the PCs to their deaths as a cover-up
for a plan of their own. This was so convincing, even knowing as GM that
it wasn't true didn't help me.... It made much more sense than the module
did.

_Spider Queen_ wasn't as bad as that, but one did still wonder why the PCs,
and not their superiors, were the ones doing the fighting. In my own gameworld
it would have made sense, but 11th level PCs are not top people in
Faerun.

Post by Joachim Schipper
In fact, this may even help with the 'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

This would seem to end the campaign, unless the players want to do Elminster
and Co. It was something we were actively trying to avoid. (Our Elminster
equivalent was one of the Seven Sisters, the good-guy drow priestess. We
kept coming up with reasons she didn't do it herself, but they got fairly
strained. With Teleport, it would not have taken her away from her day
job for more than a few hours at most.)

This is a standard FRP problem, not specific to these modules. You just
have to do what you can with it.

I think _Spider Queen_ works much better if you totally disallow Teleport.
Then the PCs are the ones who have to deal, because they're *there* and no
one else can get there in time. But it's too big of a change for an
ongoing campaign, I fear.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[sw]

In article <bn6pn9$ada$***@nntp3.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
[...]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
But it depends a lot on your players. My player is bugged by this kind
of thing, so I have to be very careful. When we ran _Attack on Myth Drannor_
the player eventually worked out--very convincingly!--that the "good guys"
were deliberately sending the PCs to their deaths as a cover-up
for a plan of their own. This was so convincing, even knowing as GM that
it wasn't true didn't help me.... It made much more sense than the module
did.

This seems to be a not uncommon view. The game I'm playing in now is
apparently taking that tack on the module. Not that the PCs need to
actually be sent to their deaths; they bring doom right along with them.
("You set off a FIREBALL?! On the ROOF of a TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF MYTH
DRANNOR?! Why not just make a giant sign reading 'Heroes here; all you
can eat!'?!")

Sometimes it's fun to just let those kinds of players be right. It's all
a conspiracy! Of course, this does require eventually tying everything
together in the end...

[Sea Wasp]

Post by sw
This seems to be a not uncommon view. The game I'm playing in now is
apparently taking that tack on the module. Not that the PCs need to
actually be sent to their deaths; they bring doom right along with them.
("You set off a FIREBALL?! On the ROOF of a TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF MYTH
DRANNOR?! Why not just make a giant sign reading 'Heroes here; all you
can eat!'?!")

I don't see the problem. Gets all the baddies to come to me at
once, so I can finish them all off. Beats having to work your way
through the whole city killing 'em a bit at a time.

Post by sw
Sometimes it's fun to just let those kinds of players be right. It's all
a conspiracy! Of course, this does require eventually tying everything
together in the end...

It's ALWAYS a conspiracy. The GM is God, and He's out to GET you.

[sw]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by sw
("You set off a FIREBALL?! On the ROOF of a TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF MYTH
DRANNOR?! Why not just make a giant sign reading 'Heroes here; all you
can eat!'?!")

I don't see the problem. Gets all the baddies to come to me at
once, so I can finish them all off. Beats having to work your way
through the whole city killing 'em a bit at a time.

Sadly, the party doesn't always appreciate such logic. Although I
suppose my side of the issue wasn't helped by the fact that some of the party
was within the blast radius...

Including me. But it's not a proper session unless we risk a TPK from
the Necklace of Fireballs at least once!

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by sw
Sometimes it's fun to just let those kinds of players be right. It's all
a conspiracy! Of course, this does require eventually tying everything
together in the end...

It's ALWAYS a conspiracy. The GM is God, and He's out to GET you.

You play in one of those groups where the GM hangs 'kill stickers' on his
screen, I see...

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by sw
This seems to be a not uncommon view. The game I'm playing in now is
apparently taking that tack on the module. Not that the PCs need to
actually be sent to their deaths; they bring doom right along with them.
("You set off a FIREBALL?! On the ROOF of a TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF MYTH
DRANNOR?! Why not just make a giant sign reading 'Heroes here; all you
can eat!'?!")

I don't see the problem. Gets all the baddies to come to me at
once, so I can finish them all off. Beats having to work your way
through the whole city killing 'em a bit at a time.

This assumes you're up to dealing with all of them. Not a given.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by sw
This seems to be a not uncommon view. The game I'm playing in now is
apparently taking that tack on the module. Not that the PCs need to
actually be sent to their deaths; they bring doom right along with them.
("You set off a FIREBALL?! On the ROOF of a TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF MYTH
DRANNOR?! Why not just make a giant sign reading 'Heroes here; all you
can eat!'?!")

I don't see the problem. Gets all the baddies to come to me at
once, so I can finish them all off. Beats having to work your way
through the whole city killing 'em a bit at a time.

This assumes you're up to dealing with all of them. Not a given.

Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

[sw]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

Some groups just don't _do_ stealth. ("We could sneak in, or, er... ah,
hell, let's just kill everyone.")

[Sea Wasp]

Post by sw

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

Some groups just don't _do_ stealth. ("We could sneak in, or, er... ah,
hell, let's just kill everyone.")

More interesting are the groups that DO do stealth... and then
deliberately abandon it. Had one group do that; decide that the
defenses of the target castle were impressive and presumably made
specifically to keep out sneaky buggers like them ... so they'd just
do a direct frontal assault on the castle. Figured their opponents
would never expect it.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by sw

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

Some groups just don't _do_ stealth. ("We could sneak in, or, er... ah,
hell, let's just kill everyone.")

And if the setup isn't such to support that, the technical term for
this is "suicide". At the very least, even Irish Plan specialists
have to be prepared to move fast and get the hell out before the
opposition gets all their ducks in a row.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

Well, then, you should've just gone and got it, instead of getting
into fights! Jeez!

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Sea Wasp
Then you learn how, fast. If you're not up to the challenge, what
are you doing there in the first place. Take off and nuke the site
from orbit if necessary.

You were there to get something, not take on all comers.

Well, then, you should've just gone and got it, instead of getting
into fights! Jeez!

Can't always avoid all of them, but once one starts there's a quiet
way and a noisy way.

[Warren J. Dew]

Mary, in the quoted section of your response to Joachim Schipper below you
refer to "a standard FRP problem", but I'm not entirely clear on what problem
you are referring to - whether it's the issue of stronger gamesmaster
characters not preempting the player characters, the campaign's ending when
they do so, or something else that I'm missing. I started to make a comment
but then realized I wasn't quite sure what I was commenting on. Could you
elaborate?

Warren

----

_Spider Queen_ wasn't as bad as that, but one did still wonder
why the PCs, and not their superiors, were the ones doing the
fighting. In my own gameworld it would have made sense, but
11th level PCs are not top people in Faerun.

Post by Joachim Schipper
In fact, this may even help with the
'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at
least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for
instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send
more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

This would seem to end the campaign, unless the players want
to do Elminster and Co. It was something we were actively
trying to avoid. (Our Elminster equivalent was one of the
Seven Sisters, the good-guy drow priestess. We
kept coming up with reasons she didn't do it herself, but
they got fairly strained. With Teleport, it would not have
taken her away from her day job for more than a few hours at
most.)

This is a standard FRP problem, not specific to these modules.
You just have to do what you can with it.

I think _Spider Queen_ works much better if you totally
disallow Teleport. Then the PCs are the ones who have to deal,
because they're *there* and no one else can get there in time. But it's too
big of a change for an ongoing campaign, I fear.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Warren J. Dew
Mary, in the quoted section of your response to Joachim Schipper below you
refer to "a standard FRP problem", but I'm not entirely clear on what problem
you are referring to - whether it's the issue of stronger gamesmaster
characters not preempting the player characters, the campaign's ending when
they do so, or something else that I'm missing. I started to make a comment
but then realized I wasn't quite sure what I was commenting on. Could you
elaborate?

The problem, which arises constantly in in modules, is this:

We have an interesting conflict which would be a serious challenge
for characters of level X. However, for artistic reasons we
want the threat involved to be rather serious (in extreme cases,
"the end of the world" in some sense). This would naturally
draw the attention of characters around level 2X. How do we
avoid having such characters intervene? Whether they are PCs
or NPCs is not really the key issue, but a game that is fun
and challenging for level X may be much less so for level 2X.

It would make perfect game-world sense for Elminster et al. to
tackle _City of the Spider Queen_. It would be good for the
Dalelands, and it is, I'm sure, well within their abilities. But
I can't run it--I'm hopeless as a GM for very high level play--
and I'm not sure it would be interesting for the player either.
Instead we had a party around 9th-11th level, which could just
about cope; but we had to search constantly for reasons
why *they* would cope and not someone else.

This doesn't arise as much in naturalistic campaigns, though it
still can: I find that if the players get emotionally invested
in solving a problem, they want to be able to solve it themselves,
and having NPCs intervene can be very unsatisfying. This happens
even without any GM investment in which problems the PCs are
going to solve. The players do it to themselves when they make
their emotional committment. (I do too, as a player; that's part
of what made _Paradisio_ so hard on me.)

I know of three broad classes of solutions:

(1) Don't use such a big threat; do something appropriate to the
PCs' station in the world. "Our temple will be destroyed" may
not concern the more powerful NPCs, whereas "The world will be
destroyed" really should. Unfortunately, this can't be done with
many modules (cf. _Spider Queen_, _RTOEE_).

(2) Come up with reasons why the NPCs cannot or will not intervene.
They may be busy or unavailable; they may be grooming the PCs
as successors; they may be maintaining a detente'; etc.
This is what I was suggesting for _Spider Queen_ though I'm not
very happy with it.

(3) Make the focus of the game the discovery of problems, not
the solution of problems. An example would be a detective game
where once the detectives have proven that there's a crime, they
go to the police with it. This turns _Spider Queen_ into a rather
short module, in my opinion, and "wastes" all the neat stuff at
the city. Sane PCs who figure out the problem are likely to
go for help, and will have at most a minor role thereafter.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

The problem, which arises constantly in in modules, is this:

We have an interesting conflict which would be a serious
challenge for characters of level X. However, for artistic
reasons we want the threat involved to be rather serious
(in extreme cases, "the end of the world" in some sense).
This would naturally draw the attention of characters around
level 2X. How do we avoid having such characters intervene?
...

This doesn't arise as much in naturalistic campaigns,

Okay. As far as I know I've never had that problem, which is why I was
surprised with the original "standard FRP problem" characterization, but I
don't use modules and I suspect my campaign fits into your "naturalistic"
category.

though it still can: I find that if the players get
emotionally invested in solving a problem, they want to
be able to solve it themselves, and having NPCs intervene
can be very unsatisfying.

I could imagine having that happen in my campaign, though I don't know of any
examples.

In part, I guess it's that I don't use "the end of the world" as a lever to try
to make player characters address a problem - so there isn't any big incentive
for other, stronger characters to take over. Situations which could be seen as
"end of the world" do occur, but they aren't necessarily painted that way, and
they aren't particularly challenges for the player characters to solve. There
was an epidemic of plague, but there wasn't really anything any small group of
characters could have done to stop it (it burned out on its own with everyone
avoiding it as much as possible); there was a magic change that threatened
nobles hired player characters for because they were the best people for the
job, but I would have kept running the world even if it had not been addressed.

Come to think of it, in the latter case, a low level group of player characters
was eventually displaced by a more powerful group - played by players in a
different city - when the character of the problem changed.

I know of three broad classes of solutions:

(1) Don't use such a big threat; do something appropriate
to the PCs' station in the world.

I guess this is what I'd normally do - or, in a sense, the converse of having
the player characters pick challenges appropriate for their station. As you
note, some modules are inappropriate for this, though my impression is that
AD&D modules' rating system ought to define which characters would end up
addressing the issues in them.

(2) Come up with reasons why the NPCs cannot or will not
intervene. They may be busy or unavailable; they may be
grooming the PCs as successors; they may be maintaining a
detente'; etc.

I'd add 'they may be too shortsighted to care, or have different goals.'
Politicians tend to neglect things that need doing if addressing those things
won't help them be reelected, for example. Perhaps the most powerful apparent
'good guys' would benefit indirectly from the bad guys' winning.

(3) Make the focus of the game the discovery of problems,
not the solution of problems.

Obviously this is what I used in the case of the 'magic change' threat, but as
you note it can waste most of a module. Still, modules are cheap compared to
the time you put into them; if there is a sufficient supply, perhaps it's okay
to only use 10% of each one.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[David Meadows]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
(2) Come up with reasons why the NPCs cannot or will not
intervene. They may be busy or unavailable; they may be
grooming the PCs as successors; they may be maintaining a
detente'; etc.

It's a fairly standard tactic in comic book "shared universes" that when a
weak hero team is faced with an end-of-the-world threat you will see one of
the heroes, at some point, hang up a phone and say something like, "Well,
the Fantastic Four are out of town again, looks like this one's up to us!"

In my superhero game, I played deliberately on the cliché, inventing ever
more wild off-stage missions to keep the powerful NPC teams out of the
scenario. It had the side effect of adding heaps of back-story to my
universe as I detailed what those off-stage threats were and what the
repercussions of the NPC team's missions would be.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

David Meadows, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by David Meadows

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
(2) Come up with reasons why the NPCs cannot or will not
intervene. They may be busy or unavailable; they may be
grooming the PCs as successors; they may be maintaining a
detente'; etc.

It's a fairly standard tactic in comic book "shared universes" that when a
weak hero team is faced with an end-of-the-world threat you will see one of
the heroes, at some point, hang up a phone and say something like, "Well,
the Fantastic Four are out of town again, looks like this one's up to us!"

I've always hated that, though. It's the one good thing about the
annual mass-crossover trend in comic books; it shows that when a threat
of the appropriate class appears, the big guns *do* all try to do
something about it, greatly aiding my suspension of disbelief.

The one time I liked the sort of explaining away of why the powerful
characters don't show up was the time that it in fact became a major
plot point. In 1984 or 85, when the former inhabitants of Mars invaded
the DC Earth in JLA, it showed why most of the major heroes couldn't be
bothered to show up. After a group of second-stringers narrowly eked
out a victory anyway, Aquaman, the leader at the time, was so furious
with Superman et al that he BROKE UP THE TEAM and insisted that only
those heroes willing to make a full time commitment join his new JLA.
This, it seemed to me, was absolutely the right response. Greanted, it
led to the lamest period of the team's entire history, but I thought
rather highly of how it started.

Unfortunately this was just before the Crisis and now it officially
never happened, or happened differently, or something, but that's a rant
for another newsgroup...

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Warren J. Dew, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

(Mary wrote, as a possible solution to the "why doesn't Elminster handle
this" category of problem)

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
(2) Come up with reasons why the NPCs cannot or will not
intervene. They may be busy or unavailable; they may be
grooming the PCs as successors; they may be maintaining a
detente'; etc.
I'd add 'they may be too shortsighted to care, or have different goals.'
Politicians tend to neglect things that need doing if addressing those things
won't help them be reelected, for example. Perhaps the most powerful apparent
'good guys' would benefit indirectly from the bad guys' winning.

This is both underused and, when it *is* used, used too unsubtly a lot
of the time. The more of history I study, the more plausible this
seems; real life provides innumerable examples of it.

I tend to have the problem of making the NPCs too reasonable; if they
are to behave like real people, they really should have blind spots and
irrational defense mechanisms aplently. Bradd, in another context,
recently flagged the idea that nearly everyone is basically reasonable
and will act rationally as a deeply geeky assumption that far too many
gamers make; in reality not everyone is swayed by a rational argument,
or even by a real appreciation of their own self-interest.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@news.easynews.com>,
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote:

[good powerful people too busy, or have contrary agendas, and
don't help]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
This is both underused and, when it *is* used, used too unsubtly a lot
of the time. The more of history I study, the more plausible this
seems; real life provides innumerable examples of it.

It's plausible if it arises naturally from the scenario, but
I find that if I need the NPCs not to intervene, and then invent
plausible-sounding reasons why they don't intervene, it's hard
not to sound unconvincing to my player. I know my motives are
metagame, and he picks it up far too readily from me. (Maybe
this has to do with having been married to him for 13 years.)

And if you have scenario after scenario where the putative good
guys don't intervene, the PCs should eventually take note. Perhaps
the next scenario should be a revolution?

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
I tend to have the problem of making the NPCs too reasonable; if they
are to behave like real people, they really should have blind spots and
irrational defense mechanisms aplently. Bradd, in another context,
recently flagged the idea that nearly everyone is basically reasonable
and will act rationally as a deeply geeky assumption that far too many
gamers make; in reality not everyone is swayed by a rational argument,
or even by a real appreciation of their own self-interest.

Agreed.

I just can't reliably get there by starting with a needed outcome and
then trying to coerce the NPC into acting in that particular way,
especially when it's wrongheaded. I only get artistically good
results when the NPC objection arises on its own. And of course
one can't rely on that happening.

I also think that truth can be stranger than fiction, and some
degrees of failure of self interest don't make convincing stories
or games even though they do happen in real life.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[sw]

In article <bncehf$vb0$***@nntp3.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
[...]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
And if you have scenario after scenario where the putative good
guys don't intervene, the PCs should eventually take note. Perhaps
the next scenario should be a revolution?

Now THIS sounds like a fun adventure. Especially since afterwards they
have to deal with whatever big nasties the previous Powers were warding
off/making deals with. I mean, who _doesn't_ like giving the powers that
be a sock in the mouth?

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Joachim Schipper
As far as TPK are concerned, wouldn't having someone out of the dungeon with
an interest in getting the job done, and the resources to check on PCs and
send in another party if necessary, help? For instance, the PCs are sent by
whatever major group you can fit into this module. They are to report back,
by Sending, once a day. If they fail to report for two days, they will be
considered MIA and another group will be sent to a location somewhere near
the original's group location.

I'd be awfully inclined, if I were a PC, to ask for the backup help
*before* I died rather than afterwards. At the point where Irae is sending
daily summonings at me, probably. After all, what sense does it make to
lose your powerful people X at a time, when 2X all at once might succeed?

Well, of course, the PCs are supposedly able to deal with the problem, but I
still agree that sending in overwhelming force usually beats sending in
(probably) sufficient force. However, as you note, quite a few players will
accept this matter-of-factly. It's quite a common error, after all, and
players get used to it.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
But it depends a lot on your players. My player is bugged by this kind
of thing, so I have to be very careful. When we ran _Attack on Myth Drannor_
the player eventually worked out--very convincingly!--that the "good guys"
were deliberately sending the PCs to their deaths as a cover-up
for a plan of their own. This was so convincing, even knowing as GM that
it wasn't true didn't help me.... It made much more sense than the module
did.

Post by Joachim Schipper
In fact, this may even help with the 'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

This would seem to end the campaign, unless the players want to do Elminster
and Co. It was something we were actively trying to avoid. (Our Elminster
equivalent was one of the Seven Sisters, the good-guy drow priestess. We
kept coming up with reasons she didn't do it herself, but they got fairly
strained. With Teleport, it would not have taken her away from her day
job for more than a few hours at most.)
This is a standard FRP problem, not specific to these modules. You just
have to do what you can with it.

Well, I do guess it boils down to that. It's just one of the problems with
'save the world' plots - unless the players are actually the most competent
candidates, there's little reason to have them do it. And if they are the
most likely candidates, that usually makes for a strange campaign...

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I think _Spider Queen_ works much better if you totally disallow Teleport.
Then the PCs are the ones who have to deal, because they're *there* and no
one else can get there in time. But it's too big of a change for an
ongoing campaign, I fear.

That would indeed be quite a change. And do not forget flying carpets and
animals - they are not quite as quick as Teleport, but they can still outfly
any mundane transport, and go in a straight line towards their destination.

Joachim

[Warren J. Dew]

Hidden deep within a bunch of quoted text, Joachim Schipper posts, in part:

Well, I do guess it boils down to that. It's just one
of the problems with 'save the world' plots - unless
the players are actually the most competent candidates,
there's little reason to have them do it. And if they
are the most likely candidates, that usually makes for
a strange campaign...

Usually? Could you provide some examples?

I think that in my present campaign, the most competent characters are very
likely player characters. I'll admit my campaign is unusual, but I think no
more so now than when I started it and the player characters were at the
opposite, lower end, of the spectrum of power.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Halzebier]

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, I do guess it boils down to that. It's just one
of the problems with 'save the world' plots - unless
the players are actually the most competent candidates,
there's little reason to have them do it. And if they
are the most likely candidates, that usually makes for
a strange campaign...
Usually? Could you provide some examples?

"Strange" as in "not mainstream", perhaps. Off-hand, I cannot think of
a single mainstream RPG where the PCs are ever expected to become the
most powerful beings in the world.

One might make a case for D&D, but only if we allow non-core books
which provide the option of becoming a god. Otherwise, figures like
Vecna - once mortal, now a god - will always beat you out.

Regards,

Hal

[Warren J. Dew]

Halzebier posts, in part:

Off-hand, I cannot think of a single mainstream RPG where
the PCs are ever expected to become the most powerful
beings in the world.

Even if you're only including published systems - which I think is a somewhat
narrow viewpoint - Traveller had no limits on how rich or politically powerful
players could get, and C&S allowed players to roll up Kings and dragons.
Though dated, I don't think they are all that far from the mainstream.

I'm still interested in what examples Joachim was thinking of....

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[David Meadows]

Post by Halzebier
"Strange" as in "not mainstream", perhaps. Off-hand, I cannot think of
a single mainstream RPG where the PCs are ever expected to become the
most powerful beings in the world.

Amber. It's not just expected -- it's virtually essential.

[Doug Lampert]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Halzebier
"Strange" as in "not mainstream", perhaps. Off-hand, I cannot think of
a single mainstream RPG where the PCs are ever expected to become the
most powerful beings in the world.

Amber. It's not just expected -- it's virtually essential.

IIRC you are playing the next generation down and people like Corwin and
Benidict are still much stronger than you.

DougL

[Halzebier]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:16:53 -0000, "David Meadows"

Post by David Meadows

Post by Halzebier
"Strange" as in "not mainstream", perhaps. Off-hand, I cannot think of
a single mainstream RPG where the PCs are ever expected to become the
most powerful beings in the world.

Amber. It's not just expected -- it's virtually essential.

Hmm, I wouldn't classify Amber as mainstream. YMMV.

V:tM theoretically has the potential for a character to become the
ultimate power, as it is possible to steal a victim's power. Still,
there are no stats for Caine, which suggests he's not 'meant' to be
taken down.

FRPGs have ancient immortals as well, and unless there is a way to
steal their power, the characters can never hope to match them.

(Campaigns covering thousands of years are an option, but hardly a
mainstream one. Very few systems explicitly support this type of play.
Incidentally, one of the Rolemaster Companions has rules for
ultra-long-term attrition and automatic acquisition of skills...
Weather Watching and stuff like that. ;-)

In Science Fiction, there are bound to be uber-powerful aliens (Star
Trek's Q etc.). RPGs set in our world (without super powers) would
seem a possibility (not much of a power curve, at least in regards to
personal power as opposed to wealth/influence), but I can't think of a
mainstream one right now.

Regards,

Hal

[Joachim Schipper]

<Oops! This is not supposed to be in 'drafts' anymore!>
<Excuse me... I've been very busy over the last days, but clicking 'send'
shouldn't be beyond me...>

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, I do guess it boils down to that. It's just one
of the problems with 'save the world' plots - unless
the players are actually the most competent candidates,
there's little reason to have them do it. And if they
are the most likely candidates, that usually makes for
a strange campaign...
Usually? Could you provide some examples?
I think that in my present campaign, the most competent characters are very
likely player characters. I'll admit my campaign is unusual, but I think no
more so now than when I started it and the player characters were at the
opposite, lower end, of the spectrum of power.

Well, in the campaign I currently play, some madman/-demigod/-(full) god has
decided to take on the whole pantheon at once (worse yet, he seems to be
doing reasonably good, as evidenced by his continued breathing). The
pantheon, in turn, has a primary and backup plan in place to pevent a
crucial stage of his ascension.

It turns out that my PC, aided by the group of NPCs he gathered, is the
back-up plan. He is by no means the most powerful being in the universe, but
with all the support he has from gods he would rank very high among mortals,
and his unique talents are enough to give even gods and demon princes pause.
He's not in any way able to beat them, but he's powerful enough that they
would need to take some care around him.

One of the consequences is that few mortals are ever relevant. The classic
'random encounter' is pretty senseless; not only is the group powerful
enough to wipe out half an army if need be (take note: this is GURPS; the
power curve is almost flat compared to D&D, for instance; the best fighters
in the world might be able to take a handful of standard soldiers), but even
if the army managed to get them in a tight spot the gods would bust them
out. Most mortals and even 'higher beings' (not the gods; think their
servants) are sufficiently below our power level that we could basically do
as we please with them. We could be stopped if running amok, but only by
Elminster and his likes - no 'standard mortal' would stand a chance.

This, to me, means a completely new and non-mainstream way of campaigning.
Aiding mortals, for instance, is usually pointless - there are more
important things to worry about than a dragon burning down a village, even
if killing the dragon would be quite possible.

There are doubtlessly other examples, some of which may be quite a bit
better, but this is what I was thinking of.

Joachim

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Joachim Schipper
This, to me, means a completely new and non-mainstream way of campaigning.
Aiding mortals, for instance, is usually pointless - there are more
important things to worry about than a dragon burning down a village, even
if killing the dragon would be quite possible.

Can you say something about what you *do* do? What kinds of
challenges, what kinds of responses?

I would be daunted at running something like this; without the
lesser encounters I think the pace and intensity would be overwhelming
for the GM, and maybe for the players as well. Not to say it
can't be done--obviously it can--I don't know how to do it, though.
(Or I have the wrong GM and players.)

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Joachim Schipper
This, to me, means a completely new and non-mainstream way of campaigning.
Aiding mortals, for instance, is usually pointless - there are more
important things to worry about than a dragon burning down a village, even
if killing the dragon would be quite possible.

Can you say something about what you *do* do? What kinds of
challenges, what kinds of responses?

I'm not Joachim, but I'm in a similar campaign. The characters are demigods,
controlling part of a continent. They only recently ascended and are still
finding their feet. In particular they don't have many followers.

Recent specific challenges
o Decide to deal with mortals reciting offensive tales by giving them bad
luck.
o Dispatch a small army under the command of a follower to deal with restless
orcs.
o Continue our self-imposed quest to find all of the orb dragons, a new type
of dragon which have the potential to ascend. Meet a mortal mage who
recently lost his orb dragon and agree to help him recover it.
o Rescue another orb dragon from the minions of the goddess of dragons
(who is a greater deity, and thus far beyond us).
o Defend our lands from their counterattack.
o Make a mutual defence treaty with a medium-power local deity.
o Make agreement with same to move a warrior country under our control
into the goblin lands to solve the goblin problem permanently. Agree to
accept another country more suited to my characters ethos in return.
o Obtain an artifact to trade for another orb dragons from an ancient
catacomb.
o Examine the artifact, find it's not what we thought it was. Shelve
the artifact until we can decide how to handle it.
o One character deals with the emotional fallout of an old flame returning,
now with a large gulf between them (mortal/immortal).
o Meet several times with Belial, an archdevil who possesses another orb
dragon. We will have the orb dragon if we declare war against an enemy of
his, another archdevil.
o While searching his base for information about the orb dragons, find an old
enemy is still alive. Ally with them (for now) against the goddess of
dragons.
o Search the library of Dyllar the scribe, deity of knowledge, for information
about our enemy/ally.
o Socialise with other demigods at the library, looking for potential long
term allies or enemies.

Other events occured while these were happening which were not played out.
Ruling, raising their children, watching over our existing followers, trying
to gain more followers, socialising with the mortal nobles in our kingdoms,
etc. We have a pretty good idea what happens, and we wouldn't have the time at
a player level anyway.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I would be daunted at running something like this; without the
lesser encounters I think the pace and intensity would be overwhelming
for the GM, and maybe for the players as well. Not to say it
can't be done--obviously it can--I don't know how to do it, though.
(Or I have the wrong GM and players.)

Many of the above series of adventures (which are actually interleaved) are
pretty high powered, but none are 'save the world'. For those characters,
meeting with mortals and such are 'lesser encounters'. The really minor stuff
they assign their followers to deal with.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Joachim Schipper
This, to me, means a completely new and non-mainstream way of

campaigning.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Joachim Schipper
Aiding mortals, for instance, is usually pointless - there are more
important things to worry about than a dragon burning down a village, even
if killing the dragon would be quite possible.

Can you say something about what you *do* do? What kinds of
challenges, what kinds of responses?
I would be daunted at running something like this; without the
lesser encounters I think the pace and intensity would be overwhelming
for the GM, and maybe for the players as well. Not to say it
can't be done--obviously it can--I don't know how to do it, though.
(Or I have the wrong GM and players.)

Well, for starters, this is, like your game, a solo campaign. The GM may
have slightly more time that way.

We play with a party of one PC and several 'GMCs', Game Master Characters,
who are a permanent part of the party and enjoy many of the benefits of
player characters. However, they are not true PCs and get considerably less
spotlight time, for instance.

Glenn Butcher already suggested several options; however, our place in the
grand scheme is a bit lower and our power is quite limited in scope. We do
have several (potential) rulers among the group, but they are not able to do
all that much ruling, mostly because our main enemy has a tendency to both
require intervention (so that we have to leave our 'bases') and destroy
anywhere we stay for too long. Additionally, it's clear our benefactors
would like us to act as a party instead of as an alliance of rulers.

So, we are more like divinely-backed knight errants than like lords, despite
the fact that the majority is 'noble' in some way.

Additionally, many of our powers are specialized or not our own. We are
immensely powerful, but most of that power is by alliances - when you have
the whole pantheon and a few other major players backing you, you have power
aplenty. My PC has an unique talent, a sort of 'magic immunity versus gods
and the like', that also makes him immensely good at attacking gods and
other uber-powerful beings. However, this power is very specialized, and our
vast magical power is mostly 'borrowed' from one of the major players.

This all means that we are mostly busy doing what we believe the gods want
us to do, and trying to figure out just what we're supposed to do, just who
we're fighting, and just how we're going to defeat him (or, rather, how we
are going to try not to get our own backsides fried...). One of the main
theories we hold is that, since we have clearly not been chosen on basis of
power (though we were all quite competent at the start of this campaign,
none of us was competent enough to even be noticed by the gods), we have
been chosen on basis of character. Trying to get along, and trying to deal
with the various nutcases that make up the group, is quite a challenge and
occupies a large amount of our game-time.
In this vein, the most recent example was the murder of the High Priest in
Arabel, the father of the Lady in our group. She was quite shocked, of
course, and it was, at least, allowed to happen by one of our allies whom we
had allowed to use Arabel as a base of operations. There were severe
pressures on the ally, though, and it was eventually decided to leave her in
(temporary) control of Arabel for the time being. However, she has once
again proven to be an unreliable ally - in fact, were it not for the fact
that we need her support and she's clearly the lesser of two evils, we would
have at least stopped cooperating long ago.
Another example of this was our mission to make sure the king of my home
town and my PC's brother did not kill each other off - and that they did not
give in to the evil that taints them both. It is quite a complicated
situation, because my PC and his brother believe the throne to be rightfully
theirs and we have already clashed once (resulting in my brother being
imprisoned for life and me being banished for a long, long time). The
mission was succesful, more or less - the brother later tried to kill the
king, giving in to the evil. A runaway group member intervened and saved the
king.

Secondly, planning is an important part of every attempt. Because we are not
quite powerful enough to face our enemy directly, yet do not want to do
nothing, a lot of effort is put into hindering him without presenting too
obvious a target.
And, of course, the actual execution of such plans takes a long time, as
well. Some of the things we have done recently include:
+ Fight off the Bad Guy's army of orcs, ogres, and worse until one
of our allies can Teleport in and save Arabel (this was the ally that was
subsequently allowed to use it as a base of operations). This mission was
succesful, partly due to our own power, partly due to the aid of an ancient
elven Mythal-like entity, partly due to our ally Teleporting in on time, and
partly due to a mysterious priestess from my PC's home town intervening.
+ Convince the Council in the capital to remove our enemy from their
ranks (yes, he's infiltrated that too...), and ban him from their lands.
This mission was likewise succesful, though our enemy tries to convince us
he left willingly. We believe he did not, but he could have sabotaged the
plan if he had put a lot of effort into it.
+ Plan to meet one of the other major players who seems to take an
active part in the happenings at last... and may well prove to be even more
unreliable than his sister in Arabel.

Thirdly, attacks of some sort are far too common for our comfort. Our enemy
has a penchant for attacking our respective hometowns, or people we love,
while we are away. He seems to be unwilling or unable to confront us
directly, but he does engage us indirectly. Preventing this, and dealing
with the aftermath, is also very time-consuming.

So, the short of it is that a large part of our time is consumed by
roleplaying, and that we have a clear long-term goal - in this case, prevent
the ascension of the main enemy.

However, I am quite new to those campaigns myself, and I must admit that I
do miss the little encounters occasionally. Just someone on the road, or a
random group of bandits attacking, no longer constitutes an 'encounter' -
because we try to avoid meeting people (you never know who the enemy
mind-reads) and can easily wipe out half an army of 'normals'.

Joachim

[g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au]

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, for starters, this is, like your game, a solo campaign. The GM may
have slightly more time that way.

Our game is one GM two players.

Post by Joachim Schipper
Glenn Butcher already suggested several options; however, our place in the
grand scheme is a bit lower and our power is quite limited in scope. We do
have several (potential) rulers among the group, but they are not able to do
all that much ruling, mostly because our main enemy has a tendency to both
require intervention (so that we have to leave our 'bases') and destroy
anywhere we stay for too long. Additionally, it's clear our benefactors
would like us to act as a party instead of as an alliance of rulers.

Actually our group acts like a party too. They were friends long before they
became rulers. They mostly live in the same house.

Post by Joachim Schipper
Thirdly, attacks of some sort are far too common for our comfort. Our enemy
has a penchant for attacking our respective hometowns, or people we love,
while we are away. He seems to be unwilling or unable to confront us
directly, but he does engage us indirectly. Preventing this, and dealing
with the aftermath, is also very time-consuming.

This group has the same issue, but they became attached to this region long
before they ascended or gained significant enemies (that they knew of).

Our current enemy, the lady of dragons, could easily crush us. Doing so would
bring in our patrons, who number amongst the most powerful of deities. We
don't want to being in our patrons if we can avoid it, since escalating to
that level is likely to destroy anything worth fighting over, including our
lands. So they fight by proxy, and essentially we are the proxies for our
side.

Post by Joachim Schipper
So, the short of it is that a large part of our time is consumed by
roleplaying, and that we have a clear long-term goal - in this case, prevent
the ascension of the main enemy.

This group (my character is particular) had a similar aim. We gradually
discovered that someone was using my character to discover the laws
governing the interaction between immortals and mortals. He was force-feeding
us challenges to make us powerful enough to do ... something. He found it out,
and eventually managed to destroy him. I believe that he may be still lurking
somewhere, and it's my characters greatest fear that he lurks within her.

Post by Joachim Schipper
However, I am quite new to those campaigns myself, and I must admit that I
do miss the little encounters occasionally. Just someone on the road, or a
random group of bandits attacking, no longer constitutes an 'encounter' -
because we try to avoid meeting people (you never know who the enemy
mind-reads) and can easily wipe out half an army of 'normals'.

This group, being rulers, don't meet bandits on the road. They have soldiers
to deal with that kind of encounter. The little encounters tend to be social
interaction with their followers. Having the little encounters keeps a sense
of scale.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, for starters, this is, like your game, a solo campaign. The GM may
have slightly more time that way.

Our game is one GM two players.

I was actually responding to Mary. Not that your post was in any way bad -
it was very much worth the time - but she asked. You can see where my
apparent mistake comes from.

<snip: party instead of alliance of rules/us too>

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Joachim Schipper
Thirdly, attacks of some sort are far too common for our comfort. Our enemy
has a penchant for attacking our respective hometowns, or people we love,
while we are away. He seems to be unwilling or unable to confront us
directly, but he does engage us indirectly. Preventing this, and dealing
with the aftermath, is also very time-consuming.

This group has the same issue, but they became attached to this region long
before they ascended or gained significant enemies (that they knew of).
Our current enemy, the lady of dragons, could easily crush us. Doing so would
bring in our patrons, who number amongst the most powerful of deities. We
don't want to being in our patrons if we can avoid it, since escalating to
that level is likely to destroy anything worth fighting over, including our
lands. So they fight by proxy, and essentially we are the proxies for our
side.

Much like our position, I believe. We are still not sure, but we do believe
that we are in a very similar situation.

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Joachim Schipper
So, the short of it is that a large part of our time is consumed by
roleplaying, and that we have a clear long-term goal - in this case, prevent
the ascension of the main enemy.

This group (my character is particular) had a similar aim. We gradually
discovered that someone was using my character to discover the laws
governing the interaction between immortals and mortals. He was force-feeding
us challenges to make us powerful enough to do ... something. He found it out,
and eventually managed to destroy him. I believe that he may be still lurking
somewhere, and it's my characters greatest fear that he lurks within her.

This may well be our next stage. Depending on what happens when the main
enemy is complete, the campaign can take several directions. No matter
which, though, there are a few alliances and deals we've made that were
necessary for that mission - but as soon as they're no longer necessary,
they'll be void. And in some cases we'd like to show the other side that the
alliance was indeed temporary...

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Joachim Schipper
However, I am quite new to those campaigns myself, and I must admit that I
do miss the little encounters occasionally. Just someone on the road, or a
random group of bandits attacking, no longer constitutes an

'encounter' -

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Joachim Schipper
because we try to avoid meeting people (you never know who the enemy
mind-reads) and can easily wipe out half an army of 'normals'.

This group, being rulers, don't meet bandits on the road. They have soldiers
to deal with that kind of encounter. The little encounters tend to be social
interaction with their followers. Having the little encounters keeps a sense
of scale.

We also have quite a few social interactions, but they are rarer than in
your case. Your rulers try to be easy to find; we try to avoid meeting
people unless there is a clear reason to meet them. And, being highly
mobile, we occasionally run into the dangers of the road. Since the country
is pretty messed up, bandits are a common threat.

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27-10-03

[Sea Wasp]

RE the subject:

I am currently running the highest-power campaign I have ever run.
The players (Amberites, mostly) have just discovered that Amber,
Chaos, Shadow, and the other Powers and worlds they know, are... just
a pathetic, tiny remnant of what used to exist, and the Power that
wiped out all the rest is now out to get THEM.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Sea Wasp
I am currently running the highest-power campaign I have ever run.
The players (Amberites, mostly) have just discovered that Amber,
Chaos, Shadow, and the other Powers and worlds they know, are... just
a pathetic, tiny remnant of what used to exist, and the Power that
wiped out all the rest is now out to get THEM.

Erm... that would be a little tad above my power level, still. How are you
going about making sure that the enemy does not just wipe them out there and
then, seeing as to how it's quite powerful enough to do that?

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 3-11-03

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Sea Wasp
I am currently running the highest-power campaign I have ever run.
The players (Amberites, mostly) have just discovered that Amber,
Chaos, Shadow, and the other Powers and worlds they know, are... just
a pathetic, tiny remnant of what used to exist, and the Power that
wiped out all the rest is now out to get THEM.

Erm... that would be a little tad above my power level, still. How are you
going about making sure that the enemy does not just wipe them out there and
then, seeing as to how it's quite powerful enough to do that?

It IS going to wipe them out. Just not QUITE totally, because
they've got access to something that will prevent their being utterly
extinguished. Then they have to regain their real selves, figure out
how to get at the defense they need to protect them from being wiped
out, then gain the power and skill necessary to defeat it, THEN put
the multiverse back the way it ought to be. With Amber et al as a new
permanent addition so that they haven't fought all this time just to
recreate the old universe and wipe out their friends and family.

This assumes they play it out with skill, intelligence, and
dedication, of course. Theoretically they COULD end up serving the
Dark Power behind all this for all time to come, helping it enforce
its iron grip on all time and space.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au
Our current enemy, the lady of dragons, could easily crush us. Doing so would
bring in our patrons, who number amongst the most powerful of deities. We
don't want to being in our patrons if we can avoid it, since escalating to
that level is likely to destroy anything worth fighting over, including our
lands. So they fight by proxy, and essentially we are the proxies for our
side.

I've had trouble with such situations, both as player and as GM, because
of player reasoning that goes like this:

"As long as we don't seem to be winning, the opposition will avoid
escalating. But if we actually get within reach of winning, they
won't have the incentive to avoid it anymore, and we'll be squashed.
Therefore, we can't win and might as well not even try--we need to
find a different goal."

This can work if the "different goal" suits the players and GM, but
sometimes it didn't....

How do you avoid this, or has it just not been an issue?

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au
Our current enemy, the lady of dragons, could easily crush us. Doing so would
bring in our patrons, who number amongst the most powerful of deities. We
don't want to being in our patrons if we can avoid it, since escalating to
that level is likely to destroy anything worth fighting over, including our
lands. So they fight by proxy, and essentially we are the proxies for our
side.

I've had trouble with such situations, both as player and as GM, because
"As long as we don't seem to be winning, the opposition will avoid
escalating. But if we actually get within reach of winning, they
won't have the incentive to avoid it anymore, and we'll be squashed.
Therefore, we can't win and might as well not even try--we need to
find a different goal."
This can work if the "different goal" suits the players and GM, but
sometimes it didn't....
How do you avoid this, or has it just not been an issue?

I'm not Glenn, but we handle this by trying to gather more power and doing
preparatory work while trying to keep our enemy from seeing us. This works
well - sometimes. Sometimes random mayhem breaks loose, and we assume we've
been found and deemed worthy of attention.

On a side note, if open conflict causes escalation, spies are quite useful.
Think Cold War; meeting on the battlefields is a big no-no, but sending a
spy to get all secrets he can is quite a good plan - and 'accepted' by the
enemy, to some degree.

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 3-11-03

[Warren J. Dew]

Joachim Schipper posts, in part:

On a side note, if open conflict causes escalation, spies
are quite useful. Think Cold War; meeting on the
battlefields is a big no-no, but sending a spy to get all
secrets he can is quite a good plan - and 'accepted' by
the enemy, to some degree.

The cold war is probably a really good simile. It's even okay if the fighting
gets hot in places, as long as they are remote from the principals' real home
bases - as for example the Viet Nam war was remote from the U.S. and the Soviet
Union. In contrast, if they get too close to home - for example, ballistic
missiles in Cuba and Turkey aimed directly at the enemy's homeland during the
Cuban missile crisis - the principals will start to get involved themselves,
and the little guys won't have much say in their destinies.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[sw]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au
Our current enemy, the lady of dragons, could easily crush us. Doing so would
bring in our patrons, who number amongst the most powerful of deities. We
don't want to being in our patrons if we can avoid it, since escalating to
that level is likely to destroy anything worth fighting over, including our
lands. So they fight by proxy, and essentially we are the proxies for our
side.

I've had trouble with such situations, both as player and as GM, because
"As long as we don't seem to be winning, the opposition will avoid
escalating. But if we actually get within reach of winning, they
won't have the incentive to avoid it anymore, and we'll be squashed.
Therefore, we can't win and might as well not even try--we need to
find a different goal."
This can work if the "different goal" suits the players and GM, but
sometimes it didn't....
How do you avoid this, or has it just not been an issue?

It seems like it ought to be possible to for you to construct the various
Powers so that it's clear that there's no possible way that they'll be
persuaded to escalate to intervening directly. After all, no matter how
important that little patch of reality is to the people living in it, well,
there's plenty more reality where that came from to play games in, even if
you lose one particular round...

Of course, then you go from one problem (suspension of disbelief falling
through the floor) to another (players being continually reminded that they're
the pawns of the gods), so mileage probably varies.

Somehow I think the "bugger the game of the gods, let's all go get drunk"
plotline sounds rather more interesting, though.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I'd be awfully inclined, if I were a PC, to ask for the backup help
*before* I died rather than afterwards.

Well, of course, the PCs are supposedly able to deal with the problem, but I
still agree that sending in overwhelming force usually beats sending in
(probably) sufficient force. However, as you note, quite a few players will
accept this matter-of-factly. It's quite a common error, after all, and
players get used to it.

This is true, but no help to me because my player isn't one of the
ones who will accept it matter-of-factly (and neither, when playing,
am I). He'll grit his teeth and cope, but he's not happy. And we
get into tug-of-wars about how much help, short of intervention, the
NPCs will give. Should that drow priestess provide scrolls of
Dispel Magic at her caster level? How many of 'em?

[no Teleport]

Post by Joachim Schipper
That would indeed be quite a change. And do not forget flying carpets and
animals - they are not quite as quick as Teleport, but they can still outfly
any mundane transport, and go in a straight line towards their destination.

Irae's city is way underground, and even flying would take a while to
get there; with careful jiggering of deadlines one could make sure
that the PCs didn't have time to fly 140 miles each way to get help.
But there is always time for Teleport, unless the situation is
right-this-minute urgent. My experience with making things *that*
urgent has been bad. It's easy to catch the PCs off balance--say,
they prepped the wrong spells or used up too many of them earlier
that day--and wipe them out with what could have been a survivable
scenario.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

This is true, but no help to me because my player isn't
one of the ones who will accept it matter-of-factly (and
neither, when playing, am I). He'll grit his teeth and
cope, but he's not happy. And we get into tug-of-wars
about how much help, short of intervention, the NPCs will
give.

Out of curiousity, who is generally on the side of more intervention, and who
on the side of less? Can the tug-of-war be handled on the character level, or
is that problematic for some reason?

Forgive me if my questions seem naive, but as I said in another post, this
isn't an issue I'm familiar with....

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
This is true, but no help to me because my player isn't
one of the ones who will accept it matter-of-factly (and
neither, when playing, am I). He'll grit his teeth and
cope, but he's not happy. And we get into tug-of-wars
about how much help, short of intervention, the NPCs will
give.
Out of curiousity, who is generally on the side of more intervention, and who
on the side of less? Can the tug-of-war be handled on the character level, or
is that problematic for some reason?

It's not quite as simple as "GM wants less aid, player wants more."

In general, what the player wants is a carefully thought-out answer
to "Exactly how much help will the NPCs give the PCs in carrying out
this mission?" down to the last spell scroll and gold piece and
pre-cast spell. He enjoys resource management, and this is a chance
to manage a bunch of novel resources. He also enjoys world accuracy,
especially in areas which he's examining in detail.

In general, the GM does *not* want to have to figure out how many
spell scrolls, gold pieces, or pre-cast spells a bunch of 25th
level NPCs could or should be able to provide. It's a great deal
of work and difficult to do well, especially in the context of
a module which will provide little or no support. And world
accuracy is hard to achieve on a topic so far from the GM's
experience and the module's preparation.

My optimum would be a simple abstract solution. "No support at all"
has the virtue of simplicity but often fails to make sense.
We sometimes resort to arbitrary gold-piece figures: "Assume he can
give you any combo of book items and supplies totaling no more
than X and with no individual item over Y." Even picking X and
Y well is an annoyance for me as GM, though. The monetary system
in v3.5 is, well, it's an improvement over v1 but that's about it.

In _Spider Queen_ we had issues involving spell scrolls of Dispel
Magic at level 25, which are really powerful compared to ordinary
scrolls of Dispel Magic, but aren't any harder to make if you are,
in fact, a 25th level caster. How expensive should they be?

The conflict is really "How much work should the GM have to do
here?" It can't be settled on the character level.

This arises less often in our naturalistic campaigns, and when it
does arise, there's a lot more information to use in making the
decision. It annoys me most in module games and other background-
poor games, where the decision almost has to be made in a vacuum.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[George W. Harris]

***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

:In _Spider Queen_ we had issues involving spell scrolls of Dispel
:Magic at level 25, which are really powerful compared to ordinary
:scrolls of Dispel Magic, but aren't any harder to make if you are,
:in fact, a 25th level caster. How expensive should they be?

By the rules, their market value would be
five times that of an ordinary scroll (at caster level
5) of Dispel Magic.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Mary K. Kuhner, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
This is true, but no help to me because my player isn't
one of the ones who will accept it matter-of-factly (and
neither, when playing, am I). He'll grit his teeth and
cope, but he's not happy. And we get into tug-of-wars
about how much help, short of intervention, the NPCs will
give.
Out of curiousity, who is generally on the side of more intervention, and who
on the side of less? Can the tug-of-war be handled on the character level, or
is that problematic for some reason?

It's not quite as simple as "GM wants less aid, player wants more."
In general, what the player wants is a carefully thought-out answer
to "Exactly how much help will the NPCs give the PCs in carrying out
this mission?" down to the last spell scroll and gold piece and
pre-cast spell. He enjoys resource management, and this is a chance
to manage a bunch of novel resources. He also enjoys world accuracy,
especially in areas which he's examining in detail.
In general, the GM does *not* want to have to figure out how many
spell scrolls, gold pieces, or pre-cast spells a bunch of 25th
level NPCs could or should be able to provide. It's a great deal
of work and difficult to do well, especially in the context of
a module which will provide little or no support. And world
accuracy is hard to achieve on a topic so far from the GM's
experience and the module's preparation.
My optimum would be a simple abstract solution. "No support at all"
has the virtue of simplicity but often fails to make sense.
We sometimes resort to arbitrary gold-piece figures: "Assume he can
give you any combo of book items and supplies totaling no more
than X and with no individual item over Y." Even picking X and
Y well is an annoyance for me as GM, though. The monetary system
in v3.5 is, well, it's an improvement over v1 but that's about it.
In _Spider Queen_ we had issues involving spell scrolls of Dispel
Magic at level 25, which are really powerful compared to ordinary
scrolls of Dispel Magic, but aren't any harder to make if you are,
in fact, a 25th level caster. How expensive should they be?

As expensive as the rules clearly state that they should be - caster
level X spell level X 25 gp. That one's easy.

Of course, you are aware that Dispel Magic is capped at level 10, right?
Even Greater Dispelling (a 7th level spell and therefore 7/3 as pricey)
only gets you to level 20.

Some of your other comments have been pretty insightful but this was a
simple case of failing to RTFM.

[Halzebier]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:37:41 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote:

[Scrolls of Dispel Magic at level 25]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
As expensive as the rules clearly state that they should be - caster
level X spell level X 25 gp. That one's easy.
Of course, you are aware that Dispel Magic is capped at level 10, right?
Even Greater Dispelling (a 7th level spell and therefore 7/3 as pricey)
only gets you to level 20.
Some of your other comments have been pretty insightful but this was a
simple case of failing to RTFM.

Forgotten Realms has epic level characters, so there's a fair chance
the Epic Level Handbook or FR's own rules for that were used. Epic
Dispel or whatever exists somewhere.

In any case, no need to get rude.

Regards,

Hal

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Halzebier, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Halzebier
[Scrolls of Dispel Magic at level 25]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
As expensive as the rules clearly state that they should be - caster
level X spell level X 25 gp. That one's easy.
Of course, you are aware that Dispel Magic is capped at level 10, right?
Even Greater Dispelling (a 7th level spell and therefore 7/3 as pricey)
only gets you to level 20.
Some of your other comments have been pretty insightful but this was a
simple case of failing to RTFM.

Forgotten Realms has epic level characters, so there's a fair chance
the Epic Level Handbook or FR's own rules for that were used. Epic
Dispel or whatever exists somewhere.

The FR rules wouldn't help. I think there is an epic-level dispel in
the ELH but can you put epic spells on scrolls at all, especially in a
form usable by nonepic characters? What kind of chance of failure would
you be looking at? Off the top of my head I don't know (and yes, that
means this time it's *ME* failing to RTFM, but at least I *know* that I
don't know) but I would be willing to bet a group of 11th-ish level
characters is not going to like the answers.

Post by Halzebier
In any case, no need to get rude.

-shrug- the questions were pretty basic and were things that anyone
messing with the sorts of things Mary was talking about should have down
pat. Though admitedly somewhat flamish, my response was pretty mild by
rgfd standards.

I do notice that a lot of people have thinner skins in rgfa, though -
even, oddly enough, when they're the same people! (Not for example RSC,
but you and a couple of others for sure). What are considered flamewars
here, in most cases, barely qualify as "vigorous discussions" in my
book, though there are exceptions. Odd.

[Warren J. Dew]

Jeff Heikkinen posts, in part:

Though admitedly somewhat flamish, my response was pretty
mild by rgfd standards.

I do notice that a lot of people have thinner skins in
rgfa, though - even, oddly enough, when they're the same
people!

The reason why many people here are r.g.f.a regulars rather than regulars on
r.g.f.d or r.g.f.m is specifically because the standards of etiquette tend to
be higher here. You'll find that those who regularly fail to live up to those
standards tend to get ignored a lot.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Russell Wallace]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:27:53 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, I do guess it boils down to that. It's just one of the problems with
'save the world' plots - unless the players are actually the most competent
candidates, there's little reason to have them do it. And if they are the
most likely candidates, that usually makes for a strange campaign...

I'll suggest it's the AD&D tradition that's strange.

I mean, think about it; imagine you were familiar with the fantasy
genre except for never having seen AD&D, and someone came along and
said "I'm going to create a scenario where the Dark Lord is trying to
destroy the world, and the heroes have to stop him", how might the
conversation go?

"Oh cool, the heroes will be mighty wizards and warriors then?"
"Well no, they'll be novice mages and peasants who've just been taught
which end of a sword is which."
"Oh, is it something like a time when magic is being rediscovered and
these are actually the most talented people in the world?"
"Um no, there are lots of archmages and stuff around."
"Oh - then I guess the heroes will be the reincarnation of the Chosen
One, or the last direct descendant of Lord So-and-So or something like
that, so the prophecy says they're the only ones who can defeat the
Dark Lord?"
"Well no, they're just random adventurers, nobody important."
"And all those archmages and so forth are just going to sit around
partying while some random nobodies try to save the world? What a
bizarre setup! Why on earth are you doing it like that?"
"Uh... dunno really... it's just the way Gary Gygax always did it."
"What a strange person."

[Halzebier]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:40:02 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"

Post by Joachim Schipper
As far as TPK are concerned, wouldn't having someone out of the dungeon with
an interest in getting the job done, and the resources to check on PCs and
send in another party if necessary, help? For instance, the PCs are sent by
whatever major group you can fit into this module. They are to report back,
by Sending, once a day. If they fail to report for two days, they will be
considered MIA and another group will be sent to a location somewhere near
the original's group location.
In fact, this may even help with the 'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

Depending on the circumstances, the PCs and their successors might
even be able to make progress by fighting a war of attrition.

Then again, this is perhaps unlikely in D&D due to resurrection, daily
replenishment of spell resources and so on. Also, it's often the bad
guys who have near limitless resources. Still, repeated failure on the
part of the PCs might justify more powerful teams (i.e., of a higher
level).

(Gee, this sounds as if I am planning to bring about several TPKs. I
am not. I just don't want to have to choose between pulling my punches
and losing half the module.)

So your ideas may come in handy, thanks!

(Needless to say, some scenarios are not recoverable. If the
ringbearer fails, for instance, you cannot send in a backup party.)

Regards,

Hal

[David Meadows]

Post by Halzebier
(Needless to say, some scenarios are not recoverable. If the
ringbearer fails, for instance, you cannot send in a backup party.)

I've always felt that Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel flying giant Eagles
could have stormed Barad Dur and done pretty much as they pleased,
regardless of where the ringbearer was...

Which is why RPGs never make good novels -- players are too darned annoying!

[Warren J. Dew]

David Meadows posts, in part:

I've always felt that Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel
flying giant Eagles could have stormed Barad Dur and
done pretty much as they pleased, regardless of where
the ringbearer was...

Really? I think they would have fared rather worse than Gandalf did with the
Balrog - except that they would never have made it to the tower, as ringwraiths
could have taken out the eagles with lances or arrows.

Which is why RPGs never make good novels -- players
are too darned annoying!

There's truth to that - though I think much of it is a question of editing.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Halzebier
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:40:02 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"

Post by Joachim Schipper
As far as TPK are concerned, wouldn't having someone out of the dungeon with
an interest in getting the job done, and the resources to check on PCs and
send in another party if necessary, help? For instance, the PCs are sent by
whatever major group you can fit into this module. They are to report back,
by Sending, once a day. If they fail to report for two days, they will be
considered MIA and another group will be sent to a location somewhere near
the original's group location.
In fact, this may even help with the 'why do Elminster & Co not interfere'
part: they *are* interfering, or at least having their lackeys interfere...
and if things go really bad (for instance, several parties get wiped out by
the same thread) they may decide to send more powerful troops or lend a hand
themselves.

Depending on the circumstances, the PCs and their successors might
even be able to make progress by fighting a war of attrition.
Then again, this is perhaps unlikely in D&D due to resurrection, daily
replenishment of spell resources and so on. Also, it's often the bad
guys who have near limitless resources.

Do not forget that the power curve in D&D is exponential - your power,
expressed in CR, is approximately 2^(your level/2). That sounds very
mathematical, but it means that a n+2th-level party will wipe out twice as
many opponents as a n-th-level party, by this logic alone. Add to this the
fact that an overpowering encounter, say CR=level+4, becomes a challenging
encounter (CR+2=level) for a party only two levels higher, and that two
challenging encounters do not make an overpowering encounter. In other
words, where the first party has a better-than-50% chance of winning a
single fight (CR=level+4), the second party will fry their backsides in the
first fight and is very likely to win a second fight as well. They will use
quite a bit of resources doing so, but they will.
In other words: superior firepower is good, sending in people who can't get
through without much trouble (like PCs...) is usually far too inefficient.

Having a non-exponential power curve would solve a lot of trouble. Suppose
that every level only adds linearly to your power - then sending in two
5th-level people should be about equivalent to sending in one 10th-level
person, and it suddenly makes sense to send the PCs.

However, I've said this before and had better shut up now. I am acutely
aware it's not helping any, here. There probably is no really satisfying
solution, but your players are unlikely to mind.

Post by Halzebier
Still, repeated failure on the
part of the PCs might justify more powerful teams (i.e., of a higher
level).

Indeed, that would be an advantage to this approach.

Post by Halzebier
(Gee, this sounds as if I am planning to bring about several TPKs. I
am not. I just don't want to have to choose between pulling my punches
and losing half the module.)
So your ideas may come in handy, thanks!

Good luck with your campaign! It's good to see some activity here, anyway...

Post by Halzebier
(Needless to say, some scenarios are not recoverable. If the
ringbearer fails, for instance, you cannot send in a backup party.)

As pointed out, you can... you just have to up their level a bit. ('Your
next batch of characters will start at effective character level 65. All
(prestige) classes and races are allowed, roll 7x(5d6+10) for statistics
discarding single lowest dice in each roll and single lowest roll (reroll if
the average, after discarding, ends up under 20, or you have more than one
score under 18), and choose three major or nine minor godly powers. Starting
wealth is 10,000,000 gp, a personal demiplane, and two artifacts of your
choice.' ;-) )

Joachim

[Halzebier]

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Halzebier
(Needless to say, some scenarios are not recoverable. If the
ringbearer fails, for instance, you cannot send in a backup party.)

As pointed out, you can... you just have to up their level a bit. ('Your
next batch of characters will start at effective character level 65. [SNIP] ;-) )

Well, as long as we accept that Sauron is unassailable except by
destroying the ring (which is the premise of the quest), Sauron
securing the ring is really the end of it - even if it did nothing to
increase his power.

Some plots are intrinsically recoverable and others are not ("Slay the
dragon" and "Protect the princess" being two examples.)

Regards,

Hal

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Halzebier
Depending on the circumstances, the PCs and their successors might
even be able to make progress by fighting a war of attrition.
Then again, this is perhaps unlikely in D&D due to resurrection, daily
replenishment of spell resources and so on.

_City of the Spider Queen_ is a *really* bad candidate for a PC
war of attrition. Irae's goddess is the patroness of Vengeful
Revenants; killing off Irae's underlings is just not helpful at
all. (In fact, one wonders about killing Irae either. My PCs
ended up giving her body to a summoned angel to take away, as I
recall, and hoping that was enough.)

My group fought the same NPCs several times, I think up to three
times for one of them.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Joachim Schipper posts, in part:

Well, it seems that r.f.g.a has regular hiatuses, anyway.
Occasionally checking it doesn't hurt - if there are no
posts, you simply do nothing anyway.

Only takes a few seconds. I think we're finding out right now who still checks
it frequently.

I'd note that some of the discussion previously on r.g.f.a seems to have moved
to r.g.f.misc, which went through a long troll free period conducive to polite
discussion.

And yes, this is not the most 'deep' discussion I've seen
here - but deep discussions had a tendency to involve
flames far too soon for my liking.

I'm willing to accept the flames for the deeper discussion. One needn't take
the flames personally, even when they are meant that way.

The discussions on the Forge, for example, got way too shallow for my tastes
one Brian Gleichman left. I wish I could still contact him, as I feel like we
have unfinished business regarding turning long term campaigns generational.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Doug Lampert]

Post by Joachim Schipper
Well, it seems that r.f.g.a has regular hiatuses, anyway.
Occasionally checking it doesn't hurt - if there are no
posts, you simply do nothing anyway.
Only takes a few seconds. I think we're finding out right now who still checks
it frequently.

Not neccesarily, I check daily when I have the time to do UseNet at all.

But had nothing much to add to the current discussion.

DougL

[Charlton Wilbur]

WJD> Only takes a few seconds. I think we're finding out right
WJD> now who still checks it frequently.

It's still in my newsgroups list; I see when someone posts to it. It
doesn't take any more effort to check rgfa than it does to check any
of the other newsgroups I subscribe to.

Charlton

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Halzebier
(b) Will failure on the part of the PCs destroy the world or make it
unplayable?
[I wouldn't mind it if the PCs ultimately failed and a large-scale
catastrophe ensued, but destroying the game world would be a tad
much.]

I'm not sure I see why this would be a problem.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[sw]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Halzebier
(b) Will failure on the part of the PCs destroy the world or make it
unplayable?
[I wouldn't mind it if the PCs ultimately failed and a large-scale
catastrophe ensued, but destroying the game world would be a tad
much.]

I'm not sure I see why this would be a problem.

It is somewhat difficult to continue telling stories in a world which
has been reduced to a rapidly expanding cloud of mildly glowing dust.

If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won and the world
is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give me a couple weeks to come up
with a new campaign world, eh?" any time the PCs screw up, it becomes a
bit more difficult to invest a lot of effort in a world when it might all
go poof at any time.

If things are merely catastrophic, as opposed to apocalyptic, if the PCs
are in a TPK somewhere along the way, then at least you have somewhere to
work from - it can even be kind of cool to continue playing after evil has
triumphed already and then gone back to the Palace of Cruelty to gloat
about it.

Generally, one wants to challenge the PCs and give them an Important Task,
but one also wants to preserve all the hard work that went into fleshing out
NPCs and working on the game world if, for example, they're all eaten by
mind flayers.

[Warren J. Dew]

Sw posts, in part:

If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won
and the world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give
me a couple weeks to come up with a new campaign world, eh?"

Of course, running the dark age might be interesting for some....

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Halzebier]

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won
and the world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give
me a couple weeks to come up with a new campaign world, eh?"
Of course, running the dark age might be interesting for some....

"Midnight" for d20 assumes just that and is a very nice setting
indeed. Should be adaptable to a Middle Earth where Sauron got the
ring back...

That said, an "end of the world" scenario may literally mean just
that. If the planet goes <poof>, it's game over for all future
campaigns.

And even if it doesn't, sw's point still stands: depending on the
situation, a helluva lot of prep work may go down the drain - to the
extent where you might just as well use a new world.

(Example: A James Bond game where the players fail to prevent
full-scale nuclear war. You may still run Mad Max/Aftermath etc., but
that's really a new game.)

Regards,

Hal

[sw]

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won
and the world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give
me a couple weeks to come up with a new campaign world, eh?"
Of course, running the dark age might be interesting for some....

Running the dark age could be more fun than running the light age,
for some people. You do have to be careful to avoid overdoing the
"The world has gone to shite and it's all your fault" bit with the
players, though. Even though it's accurate, it does tend to get
real old, real quick.

[Doug Dawson]

Post by sw

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won
and the world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give
me a couple weeks to come up with a new campaign world, eh?"
Of course, running the dark age might be interesting for some....

Running the dark age could be more fun than running the light age,
for some people. You do have to be careful to avoid overdoing the
"The world has gone to shite and it's all your fault" bit with the
players, though. Even though it's accurate, it does tend to get
real old, real quick.

One note, from experience. In my Feng Shui game, after a lot of
escalation, the PCs ended up in a major showdown. They won, but in
the process did something that basically ended The World As We Know It.
It's been an interesting game since, as I've had to deal with the
consequences of breaking history, and now they have to decide whether
they want to finish destroying the world and start over or try to fix
what they've got. This is not something I'd care to do that often; the
burden of guilt occasionally makes the game less fun than otherwise.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by sw

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Halzebier
[I wouldn't mind it if the PCs ultimately failed and a large-scale
catastrophe ensued, but destroying the game world would be a tad
much.]

I'm not sure I see why this would be a problem.

It is somewhat difficult to continue telling stories in a world which
has been reduced to a rapidly expanding cloud of mildly glowing dust.

It's somewhat difficult to continue telling stories with a group of dead
PCs (VtM/WtO/etc notwithstanding). To a large degree you are already
starting a new campaign, so strong continuity with the old doesn't seem
that important.

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won and the
world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give me a couple weeks
to come up with a new campaign world, eh?" any time the PCs screw up,
it becomes a bit more difficult to invest a lot of effort in a world
when it might all go poof at any time.

What's to stop you from using the world? Destruction of the gameworld
doesn't cause your notes to burst into flames.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[sw]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won and the
world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give me a couple weeks
to come up with a new campaign world, eh?" any time the PCs screw up,
it becomes a bit more difficult to invest a lot of effort in a world
when it might all go poof at any time.

What's to stop you from using the world? Destruction of the gameworld
doesn't cause your notes to burst into flames.

Well, no. But it sort of removes some of the feeling of urgency (which
is part of the _point_ of a "The Fate Of The World Is At Stake!" plot
for some people) if you just slap the continuity reset button if they
stuff it. Do it too often and it starts to become a comedy effect, which
can completely blow the tone out of the water for some groups.

I get what you mean of course; there's nothing stopping you from
re-using things even if the campaign ends in a apocalypse TPK, but you will
certainly need to put a bit of effort into re-doing big parts of it.

Of course, it might be a good idea, just once, to actually blow up the
planet, just to show the players you mean business.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by sw

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won and the
world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give me a couple weeks
to come up with a new campaign world, eh?" any time the PCs screw
up, it becomes a bit more difficult to invest a lot of effort in a
world when it might all go poof at any time.

What's to stop you from using the world? Destruction of the gameworld
doesn't cause your notes to burst into flames.

Well, no. But it sort of removes some of the feeling of urgency (which
is part of the _point_ of a "The Fate Of The World Is At Stake!" plot
for some people) if you just slap the continuity reset button if they
stuff it. Do it too often and it starts to become a comedy effect,
which can completely blow the tone out of the water for some groups.

First off, it feels a lot less like a reset if afterwards the players do
not have the same characters and aren't undertaking the same actions.

Secondly, things can be done without resets. Run a campaign that starts
three years before the end of the world - much of the world will be the
same, so minimal preparation is wasted. Hell, run a campaign parallel to
the world ending one, but not related in any way. See what happens when
you combine a sense of urgency with a sense of futility.

Post by sw
I get what you mean of course; there's nothing stopping you from
re-using things even if the campaign ends in a apocalypse TPK, but you
will certainly need to put a bit of effort into re-doing big parts of
it.

Depends on what parts you rip. You could basically lift a web of
politics and social interractions from a fantasy setting and dump them
into a western or a space opera with little tinkering. If anything, I
find it harder to translate from one style of play to another than to
move between worlds/settings.

Post by sw
Of course, it might be a good idea, just once, to actually blow up the
planet, just to show the players you mean business.

I can't think of any situation where this would be a good idea, but
whatever floats your boat.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[sw]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by sw

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by sw
If major campaign plotlines reduce to "oh, hell, evil won and the
world is plunged into a new dark age... uh... give me a couple weeks
to come up with a new campaign world, eh?" any time the PCs screw
up, it becomes a bit more difficult to invest a lot of effort in a
world when it might all go poof at any time.

What's to stop you from using the world? Destruction of the gameworld
doesn't cause your notes to burst into flames.

Well, no. But it sort of removes some of the feeling of urgency (which
is part of the _point_ of a "The Fate Of The World Is At Stake!" plot
for some people) if you just slap the continuity reset button if they
stuff it. Do it too often and it starts to become a comedy effect,
which can completely blow the tone out of the water for some groups.

First off, it feels a lot less like a reset if afterwards the players do
not have the same characters and aren't undertaking the same actions.

Well, there'll still be some feeling with that, especially if you get
the players creating similar characters to last time around. ("I see we
have a new paladin..." "Yeah, we tend to go through a lot of them.")

If you don't at least do some alterations to the world, even if it's just
filing the serial numbers off the NPCs and moving them about a bit, it
still has the feeling of slapping the History Eraser Button, though.
Mileage may vary, of course.

Post by Robert Scott Clark
Secondly, things can be done without resets. Run a campaign that starts
three years before the end of the world - much of the world will be the
same, so minimal preparation is wasted. Hell, run a campaign parallel to
the world ending one, but not related in any way. See what happens when
you combine a sense of urgency with a sense of futility.

Some groups may be fine with that, others may not. Mileage definitely
varies. Some people don't deal well with the 'sense of futility'.

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by sw
Of course, it might be a good idea, just once, to actually blow up the
planet, just to show the players you mean business.

I can't think of any situation where this would be a good idea, but
whatever floats your boat.

Blowing up the planet is fun! It makes such a pretty sight, although it's
hell on the special effects budget.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by sw

Post by Robert Scott Clark
Secondly, things can be done without resets. Run a campaign that starts
three years before the end of the world - much of the world will be the
same, so minimal preparation is wasted. Hell, run a campaign parallel to
the world ending one, but not related in any way. See what happens when
you combine a sense of urgency with a sense of futility.

Some groups may be fine with that, others may not. Mileage definitely
varies. Some people don't deal well with the 'sense of futility'.

I'm one of them; it's a legitimate esthetic effect and all that, but
I hate it. I just can't get into character very well if I know
that everything my PC is doing is essentially meaningless because the
world will blow up next week--especially if the PC doesn't know.

A Bay Area GM once ran a deliberately futile four-session short
campaign about Bug Spirits for a jaded group of players, including
me and Jon. I think Jon was the only one of the four players who
proved able to enjoy the futility. I ended up feeling stupidly
and unreasonably angry with the GM for putting us in that
no-win situation, even though I'd agreed to it in the first place.
It's not an experiment I'd care to repeat.

The end of my Sunrise War campaign did change the campaign world
fiercely. I've run a game post-change (hard work, though interesting)
and many centuries pre-change with success. But lately I've been using a
clearly alternate-history form of the gameworld instead--the
geography and broad-sweep history are the same, but details like
the social status of halflings are very different. This avoids
questions about the current PCs interacting with the plots of
previous campaigns, while preserving a lot of my prep. It also
helps cover the discontinuity involved in switching from the
v1-based homebrew to v3.5.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Charlton Wilbur]

Post by sw
Of course, it might be a good idea, just once, to actually
blow up the planet, just to show the players you mean business.

RSC> I can't think of any situation where this would be a good
RSC> idea, but whatever floats your boat.

It depends on what the setup is.

If it's an ongoing game, and there's an in-game concern that's clearly
marked as Very Important, and the party fumbles it, I think saying,
"Okay, the world is over, we're never going to run games in this world
again" is a bit much.

On the other hand, if it's a shorter-term game, where the in-game
concern is the principal concern for the entire game, and the player
characters fail, it's entirely appropriate to say, "Okay, that's it.
All over." Handled well, I think this might be as memorable an
experience as a successful conclusion.

Of course, when I ran _Masks of Nyarlathotep_, the characters were
cool enough and their solutions to problems inventive enough that I
really didn't *want* them to fail; I wanted to continue to give them
apparently-impossible situations and have them continue to come up
with wonderful solutions that I hadn't even considered.

Charlton

[Sea Wasp]

Post by sw
Well, no. But it sort of removes some of the feeling of urgency (which
is part of the _point_ of a "The Fate Of The World Is At Stake!" plot
for some people) if you just slap the continuity reset button if they
stuff it. Do it too often and it starts to become a comedy effect, which
can completely blow the tone out of the water for some groups.

It's only a reset button if you're letting the same characters go
in the same scenario. Otherwise, it's just an AU.

Post by sw
I get what you mean of course; there's nothing stopping you from
re-using things even if the campaign ends in a apocalypse TPK, but you will
certainly need to put a bit of effort into re-doing big parts of it.\

Why would you need to re-do big parts of it?