Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

It's a long one! I can't recall if the actual game took more than one session, but it's got a lot going on.

In the actual game, the party got less into the... unexplained elements of the mines, mostly because the guy Paul represents had a lot to say in the direction of the enemy and the enemy didn't get a chance to monologue, but such is the fate of roleplaying NPCs. There's a lot of games where the big bad starts talking about the justification for his plans, and the players just shoot the guy. I mean, why listen when he's got his guard down? 

Typically, when I want players to hear an antagonist's plans out, I try to create a situation where the players appear damned both ways, so they feel they have to weigh the options. However, some groups do VERY POORLY with those kinds of dilemmas, so it's only viable if the group in question can handle it. Any team with chronic decision paralysis does not survive between a rock and a hard place.

Files

Comments

Applestone

5:08 How did he come to the conclusion that Elvis clearly needs sleep? So far Elvis' crazy behavior hasn't been out of the ordinary at all, regardless of the setting. :-)

Applestone

"I mean, why listen when he's got his guard down?" Because you're "not playing DnD", but the Hero system, that's why. But I agree it's a tough call to make, because if the consequence of letting them finish is that your characters die and the game is over then that's worse than not allowing for dramatic reveals. So, what would you do if a player said: "I am considering surprise-attacking him while he's monologuing, but I also love dramatic reveals, so if you give me a chance for a surprise attack after he's done I'll let him finish, otherwise I'll shoot him now. It's your call, what do you say?" Would you just tell them that he's plenty ready to fight regardless of whether the party attacks now or later? Or on second thought you can't say that if you said that he had his guard down.