Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Western Empire (ie, WFRP)"

Latest revision as of 16:08, 8 November 2006

As many of you know, Matt is having some difficulty reorganizing the game into something that makes sense for his vision. I think we can go to PA for at least a while so he has time to do this, but in case we need another idea there are two things I can suggest. One is the ODESSA Hunt I recently posted, which would be a mini-campaign. Another idea is more MoC testing, probably laying groundwork for the Exemplars game. Post ideas here, or create a more relevant page.

--Matts 20:58, 30 October 2006 (MST)I'd say that I wouldn't need that much time to implement the ideas I have; A few sessions of PA should cover it. On the other hand, I'd love to try out some of this MoC testing that I missed out on... Maybe two sessions of PA and a MoC test?

Or, if people want, I could be ready with stuff within two weeks probably. I imagine I'll need that much time to digest my thoughts.

Also, people can (and should) use this page to post their feedback on the game in general, though by that I don't mean getting upset about getting double-critical'd like three times in a row...

--208.146.45.110 21:05, 30 October 2006 (MST)--208.146.45.110 21:05, 30 October 2006 (MST)If we are not going to play WHFRP this week, I think we should go back to PA. We ended at sort of a bad spot, ie in the middle of combat, which in itself was in the middle of a major story arc. I don't want people completely forgetting what was going on, or perhaps more (or less) pertinently, where they were and what they were doing in the middle of getting jumped by the savages. That having been said, once this story line comes to a "conclusion", I do have a few things brewing, but I would be fine with switching over to some one shots. I'm going to vote against a "mini-campaign" because I feel like two games are about as many as I can keep straight at a given time: if we want to dump one of them and start something new, that's fine, but I'd rather not have us playing more and more campaigns in parallel. I do really like the Exemplars tests: they are like one-shots with story continuity, which is cool. But I think they have a laid-backed-ness that derives from the fact that we see them as "tests" that a campaign, mini or otherwise might lack. That's gotta be at least thirty-five cents worth, canadian. Wrote this before matt posted, so I will add: I think we are getting into a bad habit switching every two weeks. I agree with Ed that it takes a bit to get a "groove", and I think we've been bouncing around a lot lately and the stories are suffering. We started out switching at three week intervals: the last few months have seen lots of absences and a few cancelled sessions, so that we have had as good as no continuity. There was a five week period where we played no WH but only like two sessions of PA with more than three people present. So, if we are going to switch back to PA, I request we play for 3 sessions, minimum, then do whatever. Likewise the next time we are in WHFRP, we should play 3 minimum, etc. I also think that unless it's an issue of poor attendance, GM absence, or a logical stopping point in the story, we should try to put one-shots in between the sets of 3.

--Jason 21:10, 30 October 2006 (MST)I absolutely agree that we play PA this week. As for the other things, if we test MoC there will be lots of rough patches, and that means everyone is welcome to be brutal with what doesnt work. I have some good game background things we can run, such as the Death of Fist, Here Comes WFA, and Molniya Saves the Iron Curtain.

--Edmiao 23:04, 30 October 2006 (MST)I agree with Ben agreeing with me that everything should be "in the groovey", man. I'm up for whatever. I'll do a little meditating and yoga to get into the shennong mindset again if it's PA. I am also setting up a one shot for the Jin Dynasty game. It would be a kind of prelude with different characters (with option of player adopting one if they like them) to a) give me experience in GMing and b) give the players a feel for some aspects of the world. It might be ready within 2-3 wks.

--Matts 13:25, 31 October 2006 (MST)Should we just stick with WHFRP / PA alternating every three sessions? Personally, I'm not ready to throw in the towel as GM, and a few weeks of PA should be enough for me to get things ready. On the other hand, if people aren't feeling the game anymore, that's cool too, and we can take a break from it, though given our group's past, I'd say that'd probably be the end of the campaign.

--208.146.45.110 13:54, 31 October 2006 (MST)woah there, pardner. I'm not suggesting we end WH in any way, was just trying to illustrate a point. I think your suggestion is just what I was getting at. I just think we need to get some continuity going in whatever campaigns we run. If those are PA and WH, cool. If it's WH and something else, cool too, or vice versa. I feel like we've been getting excited about a lot of different ideas lately: I just think it's hard to get excited about GMing if your players always seem ready to try something different. I'm inclined to create long winded, drawn out storylines, and if we're constantly taking breaks, they never develop. For instance, I looked in my PA notes, and the Falls storyline represents, really, the second story arc I've created for that game, after the Messiah Harbinger thing. I'm happy to let other people have a go at GMing, but I think that if we're going to play campaigns, we need to stick with those campaigns until they peter out (with exceptions as described above). That's sort of why I wanted to discuss "where we're going" during the last session we had at my place.

--Jason 14:50, 31 October 2006 (MST)A discussion of our goals is a great thing. I suggest we make a page where we can all take generally about our RPG goals and desires. One thing I did in the past was make a questionairre that had players rank in importance things like npc interaction, puzzle solving, character building etc and this gives a good idea what people want from a game. This could help us all.

--Edmiao 20:56, 31 October 2006 (MST)I am far from being done with either game. Forward the gameage

An Idea: Influence

I'm thinking of getting your characters more into the politics of the present Empire, because ultimately that's where the campaign is going to be headed.

As such, I'm toying with the idea of introducing 'influence': for each NPC in the game, your character has a number associated with them. That number is the Influence you have with that NPC.

Gaining Influence

You gain influence by increasing your importance to the given NPC, through means fair or foul. Perhaps one Donnavan Gansois asks you to recover an item of importance and you do so: The GM rewards you with some amount of Influence with Gansois for the deed, depending on the relevance of the task.

NPCs have a certain cap of Influence a player may gain with them; the more important the NPC, the higher the maximum Influence a character may gain with that NPC.

Using Influence

When attempting to get an NPC to do something, you may elect to apply Influence your character has with that NPC in the discussion. The Influence used will weight the NPC's decision in your favor, though by how much is a mystery. If the NPC takes the course of action you recommend, your character will lose the Influence staked. If the NPC ends up with a net gain from the situation, the character may gain back the influence spent plus an amount in accordance with the NPC's gain.

As an example: Olaf the Strong has recently beaten back an Orc tribe that was threatening Middenheim, and gained 50 influence with Count Faarquad, the ruler of the notable metropolis. Two weeks later, Olaf is slighted by the Flatulence Society, a powerful and important group of merchants. He appeals to his friend the Count for aid, electing (as he is not a wise, crafty man) to throw all his Influence with the Count behind this request.

The Count, while loath to reprimand such an important group of wealthy individuals, but even more loath to be known as refusing the request of the Savior of Middenheim, revokes the city charter for the club and has it outlawed. The Flatulence Society needs now meet in secrecy, on penalty of jail. This causes all sorts of headaches for the Count, and Olaf's Influence with the Count is now gone.

However, let's say as an alternative that Olaf had a stroke of inspiration, and that he knows that not only does the Flatulence Society serve as a front for the worship of despicable Ranald, but that it also has significant assets in its name. He appeals to the count, again throwing his whole 50 influence behind the request, but makes sure to mention to the count that he has it on good authority that the Society is composed of rich blasphemers whose money would make an excellent addition to the Count's coffers. The count bans the Society, finds the truth of Olaf's accusation, and makes a healthy addition to his country manor with the confiscated gold. Olaf gains back his 50 influence, and gets a bonus of 5 more due to the Count's satisfaction with his improved vacationing. Note that Olaf's initial expenditure of Influence was neccesary for the Count to take his suspicions seriously, but that if he were a wiser man, he most likely could have staked less Influence, due to the Counts love of confiscation.

--Edmiao 18:33, 7 November 2006 (MST) hmmm.... we have never stayed in one city longer than two sessions and have never returned to any city. I wonder if this means the chase is almost over?

--Matts 18:40, 7 November 2006 (MST)I'm not going to be explicitly driving the players' location any longer, most likely. But even if the players are nomadic, having Influence with important people will be key (influence with Gansois, no matter how much you dislike him, might be helpful in the future).

--BenofZongo 20:36, 7 November 2006 (MST)an interesting idea. I'm not sure how this will play out, given that our group is a.) wanted as fugitives and heretics, b.) notoriously at odds with one another about who to trust/side with, and c.) stupidly headstrong and independent, by which I mean that we basically trust only each other, at best, and absolutely nobody, at worst. Also, influency things tend to be more relevant the more of a "long, drawn out" sort of storyline you have, rather than the missiony style that you were proposing to change to. But if you've got a way around that problem, the first issue will just sort of work itself out, I think.

--Matts 10:31, 8 November 2006 (MST)When I said I was looking to move towards a missiony(missionary?)-style campaign, I just meant really that I wanted there to be clear-cut resolutions every few sessions. The major players will persist, as will the world, I'm just hoping to have more directed miniplots available if the players want them.

--Jason 15:08, 8 November 2006 (MST)I believe this inifluence is a great idea. It may not be perfect as written (yet to be seen), but I think we can make it work and improve it over time. For developing such a great idea, I vote that Matt gets 50 Influence with Gabe's mom.