Grützi
Should be playing D&D instead
Osrnoob said:Something like a word limit?
Heresy... burn it... burn it with fire
Osrnoob said:Something like a word limit?
These are purely DM aids, and the degree to which a mechanic "aids" the DM is inversely proportional to how much extra work it is for the DM.
I actually had a much longer post where I tried to duplicate the effect using more traditional mechanics, but I deleted it because I wasn't entirely sure I had all the details of your system correct, and I was afraid it would degenerate into a discussion of minutiae and miss the point of the demonstration. Which was, tl;dr, you could put the factions on your regular encounter tables, and just have them behave differently according to their FEV.I agree with this.
I wish we had a table to provide as an example; we never got around to that unfortunately, but I'm pretty sure that despite the intimidating explanation, this can be condensed down to a set of nested tables only a couple of pages long. Definitely the full product with all the bells and whistles would be reserved for some Gazetteer of the Wastes that (let's face it) is never going to happen; but it's the kind of thing you put in your big world description so that DM's have a tool to create events that feed back into the central narrative rather than existing in isolation.
A more stripped down version would be employed in the hex-crawl portions of these mega-modules I've been doing. I just love that threat index combined with a faction index. Helping or hindering the factions as you crash around the Wastes murdering things and taking their stuff has quantifiable effects.
You're suggesting just putting multiple entries in the 'description' portion of the table (or encounter descriptions below the table) for each faction and you pick the one that matches the FEV?Which was, tl;dr, you could put the factions on your regular encounter tables, and just have them behave differently according to their FEV.
I skimmed over most of the other descriptions but focused on the first one to give an example. Let me know if questions or need further clarification. And remember this is just my opinion.
E 2. “The feeling of being watched”
That or a subtable, which could add a few nonstandard entries. "Pitched battle among all factions with FEV greater than n" or "Roll twice, faction with higher FEV is slaughtering faction with lower FEV" or "Roll twice (or three times, or whatever), factions with FEV lower than x area attempting peaceful negotiations, factions with FEV between x and y are verbally hostile, factions with FEV greater than y are attacking others".You're suggesting just putting multiple entries in the 'description' portion of the table (or encounter descriptions below the table) for each faction and you pick the one that matches the FEV?
How about "the hairs on the back of your neck stand up" or "you think you may have heard a noise" or "you thought you saw movement out of the corner of your eye, but there's nothing there" or "the patterns on the walls resemble eyes" or "you see the silhoutte of a man in the upper window"?This is the only one I'm going to argue. The feeling of being watched is a legitimate human sense which I believe falls fairly under Show rather than tell. Maybe the added DM information that guards hidden by the window in the Gubber building are watching the PC's, but they shouldn't be able to see the guards at this point. I know it's poor form to tell Players what they're feeling but I stand behind this as a reportable sensation rather than an emotion that adds to the creepiness of the empty courtyard.
I have to agree with this, because every alternate description I come up with also resorts to describing a feeling or sensation. And I note that two of @squeen's examples fall back on telling you what you think.This is the only one I'm going to argue. The feeling of being watched is a legitimate human sense which I believe falls fairly under Show rather than tell.
Thanks man! This is some useful advice! Like I said, this was my first shot at it and at this point I still thought I could cram each scenario into a one or two-page dungeon format which is my excuse for the brevity. I have added a DM Summary at the top of the list of revisions!
I'm unclear how there could be rumours in this scenario. I guess if you choose to talk to the Gubbers they'll have things to say, but I'd almost rather they divulge a list of information based on PC skill rolls (or good Role Playing if you're doing it oldschool) rather than randomly rolling on a table that might have misleading or non-pertinent information.
I think I see what you're saying about my abuse of point-form. What I'm doing is prioritizing PC-facing information and then subbing to related DM information immediately below and this is creating a real mess of point-form sub-sub-sub entries. I believe you're suggesting I present the PC info and then the DM info with highlights or bold in the PC info indicating further info for the DM which should hopefully lead to the need for only one indent?
I wish, as well, that I could figure out how to reduce the size of my Tab indents in Word to only a couple of characters instead of these huge spaces...
This is the only one I'm going to argue. The feeling of being watched is a legitimate human sense which I believe falls fairly under Show rather than tell. Maybe the added DM information that guards hidden by the window in the Gubber building are watching the PC's, but they shouldn't be able to see the guards at this point. I know it's poor form to tell Players what they're feeling but I stand behind this as a reportable sensation rather than an emotion that adds to the creepiness of the empty courtyard.
I really appreciate the pointers man; they're all very useful. Thanks for your time! Hope you can stick around for what's up next!
You're maybe straying into read-aloud territory with this, but I grock what your saying and think I can work with it. I can create the paranoia of being watched without just telling it or conversely writing a long-winded paragraph. I'll take another stab at it, thanks!perhaps a trick of the sun?
Definitely there's been some disagreement on this forum, but I'm a fan of this layout. Different people parse information differently and if I could find a way to make everyone happy, I would, but in the meantime I should go with a style that I would personally find usable at the table. I mean, if I can't understand or imagine running my own writing how the hell can I expect anyone else to, right?Again, this is how I would do it, doesn't mean it's the correct way.



