[dungeoncrawl] Re: Thursday morning summary

Oops - mouth zipping shut.  Will say no 
more. :)  OK, maybe I should.  We're 
not DMing here, so I'll say that it 
comes to you from Faceus himself.  Only 
those who are currently played in the 
active group (or those who replace 
them) will be eligible for godhood.

That knowledge may resolve much of the 
convolution problem - the group can be 
structured as you (the players) see 
fit. I want to resist saying why this 
is so; even party members who are dead 
will still be eligible if they meet one 
particular criteria - and everyone you 
played in the fight last night already 
meets it.

So far, everyone else doesn't. 

> 
>     Nadan doesn't want to be a god, 
but I don't care if he becomes one.
> It would certainly get the guy out of 
the way.  :)
>     I assume you mean just the 
characters we are currently playing?
> 
> jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Hopefully, next week should serve to
> > shed some light on where things are
> > headed.  Believe it or not, the 
road to
> > godhood is already being paved - for
> > better or for worse.
> >
> > Let me take this opportunity to ask 
an
> > important question:  does anyone 
have a
> > character in the current group that
> > they do not want to see become a 
god?
> > (Important: I'm not saying this in
> > terms of what the character wants, 
but
> > in terms of what the player wants).
> >
> > In the end, instead of failing, the
> > characters might find a divine 
destiny
> > to be unavoidable.
> >
> > >
> > >     In the end, what will really
> > disappoint or upset me is an ending
> > > that doesn't allow us a chance to
> > retire these characters.  Do I hope
> > > that they will become gods?  Yes I
> > do.  I am so excited about writing
> > > these guys and girls up as 
deities!
> > I can't wait!  However, if it
> > > doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.
> > As long as it doesn't end stupidly.
> > >     Let me put it another way.  I
> > don't want the end to be something
> > > contrived.  So far you have never
> > gone in the direction I intended, 
yet
> > > you have continued to do things 
that
> > made sense and were lots of fun.  I
> > > have faith you will keep doing 
that.
> > >
> > > jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1.  I had to chuckle when you
> > brought
> > > > up the fact that NPCs give such
> > > > constant abuse to characters.  I
> > hadn't
> > > > thought of that, and had to 
respond
> > > > without reading the rest.  Very 
good
> > > > point!  As for Elminster, he 
had a
> > lot
> > > > on his mind:  powerful wizards
> > seeking
> > > > godhood, vast sources of power
> > leaking
> > > > into the realms, etc etc.  A bit
> > harsh,
> > > > but in line for him (at least 
from
> > what
> > > > I've read over the years).  
I'll now
> > > > read the next section:
> > > >
> > > > 2.  I'm getting a sense of 
relief
> > from
> > > > reading section 2 as well.  For 
some
> > > > reason, I just don't have a 
problem
> > > > with Baish!  I should, and I
> > remember
> > > > the character giving you 
tremendous
> > > > headaches as a DM.  I think I've
> > hit on
> > > > a "aha!" moment here:  I'm 
really
> > > > overwhelmed by roleplaying
> > spellcasters
> > > > in 3rd edition, not by character
> > > > personalities.  It was reeeallly
> > tough
> > > > running both Amrikals and not 
having
> > > > them annihilate everyone and
> > everything
> > > > around them.  I just don't have 
a
> > firm
> > > > enough grasp of 3rd edition 
magic.
> > > >
> > > > 3.  Yes, it does make sense.  I 
left
> > > > last night mentioning two 
things to
> > > > Matt and Damon:  (1) How to DM 
your
> > > > powerful characters (which we
> > discussed
> > > > today), and (2) how terrified I 
am
> > of
> > > > this plot.
> > > >
> > > > I'm loving it, and I'm glad 
everyone
> > > > else is having fun, but there's
> > bound
> > > > to be some controversy from what
> > > > happens next!  As each week
> > progresses,
> > > > the danger level is going to go 
up.
> > > >
> > > > Some of that "controversy" 
concern
> > > > comes from my knowledge of 
things to
> > > > come that won't necessarily be
> > popular
> > > > with the players - the events 
might
> > > > even come across as a "wet 
blanket"
> > of
> > > > sorts.
> > > >
> > > > For example, Gadget and Faceus
> > weren't
> > > > captured by Mylena - Tyr sent 
them.
> > > > They both have a specific 
mission:
> > > > Faceus to prevent the group from
> > > > succeeding, and Gadget to deal 
with
> > > > Klaw.
> > > >
> > > > For an example of what concerns 
me,
> > > > I'll mention one idea now that I
> > won't
> > > > use in play:  I considered 
having
> > the
> > > > gods send a messenger to the 
Riders
> > in
> > > > Sigil.  They could return of 
their
> > own
> > > > volition, or sacrifice all godly
> > aid.
> > > > That would mean no spells or
> > abilities
> > > > for any of the priests, among 
other
> > > > things.  But I've thought of a
> > > > different, more democratic way 
that
> > > > they will handle the problem, 
and it
> > > > ain't going to be pretty 
either! :)
> > > >
> > > > That's why I feel like taking 
these
> > > > things to their logical 
conclusions
> > is
> > > > going to make me as much a 
dreaded
> > DM
> > > > as Dan Robinetti.
> > > > :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>

Other related posts: