I Might Have Fucked Up My WFRP!

[Ghost Whistler]

Currently running a wfrp campaign (or perhaps mini-campaign, not sure how long it will last - maybe 9 or 10 sessions). We have a witch, a grave robber and a trader (who longs to cut hair - live the dream).

The storyline is a bit convoluted so bear with me for trying to explain what on earth I've created.

They were hired by a magister to dig up something from the graveyard. It was a code book to a magical almanac that can manipulate/predict the Chaos moon, Morrslieb. Upon returning with said package they find she's been kidnapped by Skaven. They go to her digs and find clues pointing to the identity of the author, Erich Von Zaniken, and his apparent incarceration in the Hospice in Frederheim. They don't know who he is or what he's written, but it looks mysterious.

They learn that a naasty Witch Hunter is in town, someone else they don't know. They then resolve to rescue Hood having learned that someone else, Ubrecht Umboldt, was abducted by the Skaven. This is where it gets a bit weird.

Behind the scenes the Skaven created a body double from Ubrecht to resemble Von Zaniken and switch the two without the Hospice staff noticing. The PC's infiltrate what appears a small Skaven lair (because I don't want to steamroll them with a tide of ratmen) and reach Hood and, at this point, Von Zaniken.

Now, there's also a chaos cult on the scene as well: the Cult of the Purple. They have infiltrated the town guard. A century earlier their master, the Knower of Ways, was mortally wounded by someone that will be revealed as the witch's grandfather, wielding a cursed sword. They want the almanac as part of their ritual to revive him. The pc's have discovered the presence of purple stained coins on the bodies of town guards that were cult agents. Also two people, earlier on, bumped into the witch pocketing a coin in her purse in the process.

One of the mistakes I've made is that I haven't been fully clear on how these coins work. Essentially the Cult needs the witch (her blood as the grand daughter) for the ritual, so she needs to not die. They 'know' who she is and so 'marked' her with a coin. It's all terribly mysterious - something that doesn't always work in gaming

Behind the scenes, because of mutual interests, the Cult and the Skaven cut a deal. The former has warpstone, the latter has Von Zaniken's work (which the Skaven want because they too want to predict morrslieb) so they arranged a trade.

Instead of fighting the Skaven, I decided to have the Skaven assume the PC's were Cult representatives and would be asked to prove this by...presenting the coins.

Here's where I think I fucked up. On their way out, taking Hood and Von Zaniken with them (the Skaven have his work) the PC's encountered the Cultists that bumped into the witch earlier. They should have perhaps attacked, seeing that they had Von Zaniken and Hood with them. Hood knows about the Cult. But instead, because the witch player approached them and said "here's your coin back" I decided to play it coy. She threw the coin back to the witch saying "you do not know your part in all o this child, keep it". And they all went their separate way.

This probably makes no sense. Hood was kidnapped because she was to help the Skaven decipher Von Zaniken's work (who had gone mad from his research). I think I forgot to tell them this.

I think the players are enjoying it, but I've focussed a bit too much on the witch character. I'm a bit stumped on how best to make use of the trader, though his ability to read has proved useful. The graverobber fails a lot of rolls and I'm starting to sense some frustration as, in character, he's implied he has no stake in prusuing the adventure with adequate payment. I don't want to lose the players but I fear I may have tried being a bit too clever. I need to move forward in a way that ensures all the elements introduced thus far, coins cults skavens, make sense. They are bound to Frederheim where I'd intended them to learn the Skaven had swapped Ubrecht for Von Zaniken and encounter cult agents who think Von Zaniken is still there (the Skaven lied to them). Not having the two cultists atack the pc's and try and stop them walking out with Hood and Von Zaniken was, on reflection, an error.

If you, or anyone you know, has been affected by the issues raised by this post....call a fucking priest of Sigmar and beg forgiveness.

 

[PolarBlues]

I read your thread and it sounded really cool, almost flim noir Warhammer cool. It a simple job that draws you deeper and deeper into layers of conspiracies.

Then tried re-reading it from the point of view of a player and, bear in mind I wasn't there so I'm just sepculating, I don't see there is any reason for the grave robber and trader to carry on this investigation on their own dime. Personally if my character character had been hired to steal and item and then , at job completed, my client had disappeared, I might just try to fence the loot elsewhere or just cut my loses.

The witch character has a stake in that obviously she is a person of interest, possibly in danger, from this conspiracy, but again unless the she's a close personal friend of the other player characters, why should they stick their neck out for her? Shouldn't they be out looking for jobs that actually pay and get the trader closer to cutting hair dream?

One unorthodox way you could try addessing this is getting the witch character to hire the other PCs to help her. It may mean the witch suddenly has previously undisclosed funds of some sort, but it migth give the other characters a sense of purpose.

Alternatively the currently story could be put on hold. You just have another NPC hire the trio for a different job and hope that over extended play the bonds between the characters grow to the point that when you return to the orginal storyline, the other players feel motivated by friendship and loyalty to help each other.

Just some thoughts. Like I said, I wasn't there, I can't possibly know.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Indeed. I'm not sure how to involve three disparate characters equally. They all created wildly different characters who got involved in something. Unfortunately the witch cannot afford to hire other characters.

 

[finarvyn]

Dunno how to "fix" your adventure, but I gotta say that I love what I've seen so far and would like to see more details.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Dunno how to "fix" your adventure, but I gotta say that I love what I've seen so far and would like to see more details.

Thanks.

More details...well Hood is a Magister and a former member of a proscribed sect calling themselves the Abjured. They flirt with heresy as they seek a more enlightened response to evil. For example, when the aforementioned Witchhunter, Von Faust, turns up, he's the one who arrested Von Zaniken, planning to execute him. The Abjured helped him escape and put him in the Great Hospice in Frederheim hoping he would return to lucidity. They kept his work for study, rather than 'burn everything! she's a witch'.
Von Faust is wheelchair bound and has a bullying ex army lieutenant called Jurgens. Von Faust is your typical zealot. He arrested a halfling doctor the pc's knew from around town called Severin. This person betrayed Hood to the Skaven because they threatened him after his friend, Ubrecht, was kidnapped and he bore witness. Unfortunately Severin got arrested. Even more unfortunately he got hung last night. The graverobber heckled but gave up when it was clear Von Faust and his men take no shit. On reflection that may have further put him off (I could be misreading this btw) because no one likes a powerless character. They could have intervened earlier when they saw him get arrested and instead pursued Hood.
The Skaven want the Morrslieb Almanac to enact the 'Gnawing Prophecy' and summon the Horned Rat. Their leader doubles crossed (or will) the Cult because...Skaven. He tells them that Von Zaniken is still in Frederheim, consequently the Pc's will encounter cultists when they go there.
Where it gets more convoluted is with the cult, so here goes...

A century ago Captain Vander Florin (the witch's grandpa) fights the Knower of Ways in an epic mountaintop duel. He has the Doomsword a cursed weapon that can level a powerful magus. The Knower survives in magical stasis but his life force slowly ebbs. The cult has a new defacto leader, Deschade.
Count Constantin Reinhardt is a local noble who thinks he's entitled to know magic (he can't use it, but his arrogance blinds him). His wife Liana is pregnant. For many years he has studied and built up the Cult of the Purple from hearing about its legends. This though is a lie: the cult are using him for their ritual.
Now it gets unpleasant. This is how the ritual works:
Armed with Von Zaniken's knowledge they will summon forth Morrslieb (coinciding with the Skaven's ritual in the same area) on the eve of the birth of Liana and the Count's child. That child will then be a mutant, a suitable host for the Knower's spirit.
One more piece is required: the blood of Vander Florin, or rather his living relative, the Witch pc. This creates a mystical bridge for the spirit to take the body where it will quickly grow into a daemon cult leader thing.
Deschade on the other hand plans to subvert the ritual and direct this power into himself. This plot device is to be used if the pace requires it.
This child will also resemble the Horned Rat of the Skaven's prophecy.
Warpstone might crash into town to create Mordheim 2.0

The Doomsword has passed down through the years. It ended up in the hands of a noble brotherhood of knights who fell amongst themselves after turning their back on the Empire, believing it hopelessly corrupt. Only the Doomsword and a lowly squire survived - the latter only long enough to enshrine the Doomsword in an abbey in the middle of nowhere. His spirit guards it. To defeat the Knower, it will need to be used again.

This is part of the witch's Dooming.

Unfortunately this all rather sidelines the graverobber and the trader.

Well, you did ask

 

[Stevethulhu]

The Doomsword has passed down through the years. It ended up in the hands of a noble brotherhood of knights who fell amongst themselves after turning their back on the Empire, believing it hopelessly corrupt. Only the Doomsword and a lowly squire survived - the latter only long enough to enshrine the Doomsword in an abbey in the middle of nowhere. His spirit guards it. To defeat the Knower, it will need to be used again.

This is part of the witch's Dooming.

Unfortunately this all rather sidelines the graverobber and the trader.

Well, you did ask

The Trader needs to find the map that leads to the monastery, which is in the hands of some wealthy merchant type. And naturally the sword is buried with it's last owner. Which engages the skill set of the Grave Robber. There's at least two sessions of material in those two sentences.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

The Trader needs to find the map that leads to the monastery, which is in the hands of some wealthy merchant type. And naturally the sword is buried with it's last owner. Which engages the skill set of the Grave Robber. There's at least two sessions of material in those two sentences.

Good ideas, I hope they don't lose interest before we get that far.

TBF I'm not giving them as much credit as perhaps I should, but I'm always very conscious of reading the room

 

[AsenRG]

This probably makes no sense.

Not having the two cultists atack the pc's and try and stop them walking out with Hood and Von Zaniken was, on reflection, an error.

OK, why did you play it the way you did?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

OK, why did you play it the way you did?

It felt the wrong call to have them attack the pc's. The PC's would probably have won, even though the graverobber was wounded, I was concerned it might shut down the cult plot line. I made the wrong call as a GM. What can i say?

 

[AsenRG]

It felt the wrong call to have them attack the pc's. The PC's would probably have won, even though the graverobber was wounded, I was concerned it might shut down the cult plot line. I made the wrong call as a GM. What can i say?

I mean, what was the NPC thinking? Because that's what he's trying to feed to his superiors, possibly backing it up with some made-up proof if necessary!
Just roll some dice, and if they don't buy it, he gets punished for being afraid to die or whatever. If they do, however...how can they change their behaviour?
Well, at least it's an idea!

 

[PolarBlues]

Indeed. I'm not sure how to involve three disparate characters equally. They all created wildly different characters who got involved in something. Unfortunately the witch cannot afford to hire other characters.

The couldthe witch character have a wealthy relative, some a witch aunt who has had premonitions or heard rumours regarding the character and gives her some cash to hire protection?

Alternatively go back to basics, setup another job for another patron, one which address all the player characters. You can get back to the witch plot later, and by then hopefully the character may have bonded.

Some players take to the "random people thrown together" trope better than others. It works well in fiction, but with games being an interactive activity can result in these sort disconnects . And I say this as someone who usually prefers games in which the connection between characters is part of the game premise ("you are all members of the Avengers/Moscow Ghostbusters/Rebel Alliance/etc..").

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I mean, what was the NPC thinking? Because that's what he's trying to feed to his superiors, possibly backing it up with some made-up proof if necessary!
Just roll some dice, and if they don't buy it, he gets punished for being afraid to die or whatever. If they do, however...how can they change their behaviour?
Well, at least it's an idea!

The NPC works as a steward/majordomo for the Count, but is in fact a cultist who has more power. She knows (somehow, this is one of the problems) who the witch is. That's why she palmed the coin. Doesn't really make much sense

I'll have to go with it and come up with something. I think I can. You live and learn as a GM. Unfortunately one of the players is very good at spotting plot holes. We;re all mates so it isn't the end of the world, but I take pride in my ability run bizarre elfgame polyhedral fantasies

 

[Ghost Whistler]

The couldthe witch character have a wealthy relative, some a witch aunt who has had premonitions or heard rumours regarding the character and gives her some cash to hire protection?

Alternatively go back to basics, setup another job for another patron, one which address all the player characters. You can get back to the witch plot later, and by then hopefully the character may have bonded.

Some players take to the "random people thrown together" trope better than others. It works well in fiction, but with games being an interactive activity can result in these sort disconnects . And I say this as someone who usually prefers games in which the connection between characters is part of the game premise ("you are all members of the Avengers/Moscow Ghostbusters/Rebel Alliance/etc..").

I let them create the characters they wanted and that's what they did, so really they have only themselves to blame

I think I can probably get some money to appear somehow. Maybe they find a stash belonging to one of the inmates in Frederheim. I'm not looking forward to telling them how much a coach will cost next week. They're skint as fuck.

I don't mind their character choices, I am never comfortable limiting player choice sans good reason. So that's what they did. They have a decent skillset among them, just that the graverobber's dice fucking hate him!

 

[AsenRG]

"See, people, the Chosen...err...Necessary One? She was trying to run away from the prophecy! Sure, I could have attacked them, but...hey, how do I defeat her without killing her? So I let them go. Now, we just have to off Hood before he tips them off to our existance. Should be easy to do right under their noses, wouldn't it? But She Who Must Die On The Altar has to live until the altar-meeting. And, of course, when she comes to investigate the murder..."

Wouldn't you at least let me roll Fellowship?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

"See, people, the Chosen...err...Necessary One? She was trying to run away from the prophecy! Sure, I could have attacked them, but...hey, how do I defeat her without killing her? So I let them go. Now, we just have to off Hood before he tips them off to our existance. Should be easy to do right under their noses, wouldn't it? But She Who Must Die On The Altar has to live until the altar-meeting. And, of course, when she comes to investigate the murder..."

Wouldn't you at least let me roll Fellowship?

I reward your devotion with the touch of Tzeentch....don't thank me all at once foolish mrotal

 

[AsenRG]

I reward your devotion with the touch of Tzeentch....don't thank me all at once foolish mrotal

The Trickster Chaos god? How fitting!

Still, it seems to me that this angle solves your plot hole issue. All you need is getting an NPC to try and kill another which travels with the PCs.
What could go wrong?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

The Trickster Chaos god? How fitting!

Still, it seems to me that this angle solves your plot hole issue. All you need is getting an NPC to try and kill another which travels with the PCs.
What could go wrong?

Of course, the name "Knower of Ways" wasn't a giveaway. I think the Cult of the Purple is the name of the group in the Enemy Within. I stole it from somewhere.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Seems like a lot of the backstory goes from contorted to irrelevant from the adventurers' perspective - too many characters with obscure past the point of inscrutable motives.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Seems like a lot of the backstory goes from contorted to irrelevant from the adventurers' perspective - too many characters with obscure past the point of inscrutable motives.

Very possibly, but there needs to be a context to this as there are historical events that precede it.

I don't think you can avoid that entirely. At least I haven't.

The PC's plan to head to Frederheim where they will discover what the Skaven did. That was certainly a plotline that was too convoluted. What I need for them there is to find or learn something that can point them to the next step on their journey. Learn something about the cult's plan and/or the location of the Doomsword (in fact learn of its existence).

 

[xanther]

....

The PC's plan to head to Frederheim where they will discover what the Skaven did. That was certainly a plotline that was too convoluted. What I need for them there is to find or learn something that can point them to the next step on their journey. Learn something about the cult's plan and/or the location of the Doomsword (in fact learn of its existence).

This is so foreign to me. How can you say “where they will discover”or need to learn. I never plan what the PCs will do with such certainty or what they need to learn for the game to go on. It sounds like a question on how can I keep the players on the story I the GM want to tell.

Sure if they go a certain direction they can’t miss something like a mountain but I never, ever, never count orneed them doing anything. Certainly never investigation wise.

If what you envision requires investigation and discovery of clues I’ve only seen that organically work when at least two players are on board, in that this is what they want, an investigative adventure AND are good at it. Then it becomes fun to sprinkle clues and red herrings in a web of information. Not easy but great when done well.

Otherwise it devolves into hand holding or ham fisted herding. Followed by oh, RPGs are about reading the GMs mind.

No matter how logical or much sense it makes to you with 100% backstory and 100% motivation it is never so obvious to others or as logical as one thinks.

If you need them to learn of the cult throw it at them. Maybe someone needs their help in a way that will place them in the midst of the cult, even if that someone doesn’t know about the cult.

If you know your players well then frame the reward in a way they can’t resist, of course that promise of reward can be false...that’s the way of the harsh world.

If they ignore the someone now maybe the cult comes to them as that someone has embroiled them in it and the cult sees the PCs as a loose end.

Then one must assume your players even care about the doomsword or want to take the risk associated with it. What if they don’t?

I really think one needs to be up front about these kinds of adventures where everyone is on board from session 0 we are going to find and stop a secret cult out to mess up the world.


Edit: not trying thread crap but the whole approach aka my first paragraph will have you constantly coraling your players and worrying about fucking up the adventure.

 

[Stevethulhu]

This is so foreign to me. How can you say “where they will discover”or need to learn. I never plan what the PCs will do with such certainty or what they need to learn for the game to go on. It sounds like a question on how can I keep the players on the story I the GM want to tell.

I might use a phrase like “where they will discover” in my notes when I'm blocking out a campaign. But during play, I'll use a beat chart. Which basically starts with a Hook, to get people into things. Then alternates between Developments, which push what plot there might be forwards, and Cliffhangers. Which are situations where I have no idea how (or if) the players might resolve things. Ideally, it ends with a Climax of some sort, followed by a Resolution. Or as it used to be on Star Trek, ad libs round the captain's chair to sum up the session.

It's not that different from the way TV shows are structured, with each beat ideally being about 30 minutes of play. Though it can be as few or as many as needed.

Quite often I refer to this as the flight plan. And it can be thrown out of the window very easily, as it's not really much more than a loose series of enents. And quite often, player actions can cause you to go off piste with very little warning. It does lend itself to light, action and adventure type scenarios. Especially ones where the Big Bad NPC might have a clear goal. But it is also a fairly good way to brainstorm a session outline. Especially when you've got an idea of what the characters are wanting to do.

 

[xanther]

I see all that for a TV episode, to tell a story or to even help put in place elements for players to craft their story.

It’s just when it becomes a GM telling a story then it falls flat for me, as player certainly and even as GM. I think crafting an adventure like a TV episode or movie scenes is taking the analogy too far.

I believe those concepts are great to describe a session after the fact but the fun for me as a GM is to set the stage so the players organically craft an episode or story...and not just to set up one stage or ones with “props” that support just one or a limited range of stories but a number limited only by genre and imagination

I’ve been in many games where a GM works so hard to tell a story and have you encounter specific things and hit specific points. I’m a good sport and sociable but I never play such games beyond a session or two because they are boring. I want my PC and his fellow PC comrades to craft their story.

That is I want to explore a GMs world, love the detail, but let me make a story in it, don’t have me live out for you yours.

Enough of my derail though.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Very possibly, but there needs to be a context to this as there are historical events that precede it.

Here's a suggestion: I'm not going to suggest you not run linear adventures, only that you spend more time thinking about Right Now in the setting and leaving 'the historical context' ambiguous for awhile. Focus on the present, and IF the players inquire, start adding historical details as you go, rather than trying to nail it all down in advance.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

This is so foreign to me. How can you say “where they will discover”or need to learn. I never plan what the PCs will do with such certainty or what they need to learn for the game to go on. It sounds like a question on how can I keep the players on the story I the GM want to tell.

I understand, but you must realise I'm talking about a game in progress at this point. However I don't think there's anything wrong with having "where they will discover" in a game. Whatever it is that they discover. How, might be a more relevant issue.

Sure if they go a certain direction they can’t miss something like a mountain but I never, ever, never count orneed them doing anything. Certainly never investigation wise.

It sounds like you're advocating the pure sandbox approach. That's fine, but that's not what's being discussed here. It's not what I was trying to run either.

If what you envision requires investigation and discovery of clues I’ve only seen that organically work when at least two players are on board, in that this is what they want, an investigative adventure AND are good at it. Then it becomes fun to sprinkle clues and red herrings in a web of information. Not easy but great when done well.

Otherwise it devolves into hand holding or ham fisted herding. Followed by oh, RPGs are about reading the GMs mind.

NOt sure what to make of this. I guess such types of scenario aren't your thing. That's fine too. I have no great preference; I like action just as much (perhaps a bit more) than investigation, but I certainly wouldn't eschew it.

If you need them to learn of the cult throw it at them. Maybe someone needs their help in a way that will place them in the midst of the cult, even if that someone doesn’t know about the cult.

That's what happened. They just didn't know all about the cult at first and I don't think it necessary to tell them everything at first.

Then one must assume your players even care about the doomsword or want to take the risk associated with it. What if they don’t?

I intend for them to learn what it is and then realise they need it. If they then choose not to take it I will have to come up with an alternative. Sometimes players just don't bite and sometimes players just don't want to bite. It may sound extreme but I feel if you're sitting at the table to play a game you are making a commitment to invest in the adventure. If you don't enjoy the adventure, for whatever reason, then that's a separate discussion we can have.

So I'm not suggesting I haven't made mistakes. Certainly; that's why I posted. But I am not on board with thinking that the only way to game is the pure sandbox approach of "start here, what do you want to do" (to put it very simplistically). As I said in the sandbox thread I made earlier, oart of the fun of GMing for me is creating scenarios/adventures/situations and everything. The trick is not to railroad or bamboozle the players. I don't ever stifle their creativity. Or at least I try not to. If I as a GM aren't entitled to create a story then what's the point of being a GM? I'm at the table as well, I'm entitled to my role. That seems fair to me. It's then just a question of control.

I really think one needs to be up front about these kinds of adventures where everyone is on board from session 0 we are going to find and stop a secret cult out to mess up the world.

I'm not sure I disagree, but it depends on your players. My problem is that I'm concerned the graverrobber and merchant players aren't getting to do enough. I don't think that's because they weren't clear on the nature of the adventure. It's because I have struggled in finding ways to give them equal air time. We started off with the graverobber centre stage - literally robbing a grave. But that has since shifted. Also he's had some bum luck with the dice and that's always offputting.

Edit: not trying thread crap but the whole approach aka my first paragraph will have you constantly coraling your players and worrying about fucking up the adventure.

Well I think you may have missed where this is an adventure in progress that I'm trying to re orient. My concerns aren't world shattering, just me trying to do the best I can. The players tell me they've enjoyed it, but of course they may secretly think it could be clearer or better. But we're all friends and you know how it is. I just want to run the best game I can. So I agree with not wanting to coral players and in play that isn't what I do. The real issue is whether I've ended up with something too convoluted. It's very easy, ime, to try and weave something that is too clever. I like to think players get a kick out of that, but in practice it's probably more stifling than enjoyable. I need to ease off on that. But again it may well be just how I read the situation and not how it actually is

 

[Stevethulhu]

Here's a suggestion: I'm not going to suggest you not run linear adventures, only that you spend more time thinking about Right Now in the setting and leaving 'the historical context' ambiguous for awhile. Focus on the present, and IF the players inquire, start adding historical details as you go, rather than trying to nail it all down in advance.

This. Or as I tend to think of it, don't waste time on things that the players won't interact with. Thumbnails and the Seven Sentence NPC are your friend.

I’ve been in many games where a GM works so hard to tell a story and have you encounter specific things and hit specific points. I’m a good sport and sociable but I never play such games beyond a session or two because they are boring. I want my PC and his fellow PC comrades to craft their story.

That is I want to explore a GMs world, love the detail, but let me make a story in it, don’t have me live out for you yours.

Enough of my derail though.

You seem to see RPGs as a power struggle between players and GMs. And only enjoy it when players are winning.

Me, I'd say that between the GM working hard to force players do the thing the GM wants and the players wanting to be pandered to is a huge, open and incredibly fertile middle ground. One where the GM can posit a situation and the players can respond to that. Where the players responses and the GM reactions create a new thing that neither quite expected. One where the very term 'story' is irrelevant. Where it's all about the shared experience. It's not a sandbox, it's not particularly linear or any of that. It's something else.

 

[Motorskills]

Start at the other end. Where do you want your story to be in (say) three or five chapters time?

Don't worry too much about inconsistency, generally it's only a problem if it causes players to get bogged down.


Pencil in key clues, NPCS, scenes, etc that will lead you to that end.

Don't be afraid of using Basil Exposition (a dying prisoner, a captured diary, whathaveyou) to get the story back on track if needed

Gear those scenes to ensure the uninvolved player gets lots to do.

 

[Edgewise]

The storyline is a bit convoluted so bear with me for trying to explain what on earth I've created.

This description is super-convoluted to me. I read it about three times and I couldn't digest it all.

I think the players are enjoying it, but I've focussed a bit too much on the witch character.

Maybe so, but this is easily changed, I think.

I'm a bit stumped on how best to make use of the trader, though his ability to read has proved useful

This is confounding on several levels. First of all, you're trying to find things for the PC to be good at, but the player should be trying to find things that they can do with their character to a certain extent. At the time of creation, you want to give your players some guidance about what kinds of skills and talents will serve them best. It sounds like you're trying to curate their experience and build the world around the PCs, which means that you are doing all the heavy lifting.

The graverobber fails a lot of rolls and I'm starting to sense some frustration as, in character, he's implied he has no stake in prusuing the adventure with adequate payment.

What I'm seeing here is that you're trying to build the story around the players, and they have been going along with it for a while, but it's not a perfect fit. And since they're used to being passengers in this story, they're not taking initiative. You have encouraged this to some extent by spoon-feeding them a story. Give your players some hooks that their characters will care about, and let them run with it a bit.

I need to move forward in a way that ensures all the elements introduced thus far, coins cults skavens, make sense.

Do you? Not everything in the world makes sense at first glance; it's OK to have dangling threads. And if your players are starting to be disengaged from this storyline, they aren't going to give a shit about your need to have everything "make sense." They just want you to get to the fireworks factory.

Not having the two cultists atack the pc's and try and stop them walking out with Hood and Von Zaniken was, on reflection, an error.

That can't possibly be severe enough to derail your campaign. Are your players sitting around complaining about inconsistency?

In all your descriptions, it's hard for me to understand exactly what the problem is. You're describing things in terms of the in-game plot, but that's very backwards. What do your players seem to be unhappy about? What are they saying? Forget about the damn game plot for a second; talk about the humans sitting at the table.

The only thing I hear you saying about your players is that one of them is complaining in-character of a lack of proper motivation. I agree that this is a big red flag, but it doesn't reach the level of fucking up your campaign. Your very description of this problem suggests to me that you're far more interested in your in-game fiction than your players are. Which is a problem. The most important thing is how engaged you and the players are, and I'm not hearing much about that.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

This description is super-convoluted to me. I read it about three times and I couldn't digest it all.

Fair enough.

Essentially: a powerful cult leader wants to reinvigorate himself using the witch whose ancestor mortally wounded him. To do this he needs to bring about the appearance of the chaos moon.

Maybe so, but this is easily changed, I think.

I hope so I'm not entirely sure how. I am considering having an NPC inmate of the Frederheim hospice have a secret stash the graverboer can discover. I'm just not sure how. This inmate went around killing 'evil people' and burying them in his secret garden to Sigmar, along with all their ill gotten gains. He just never got around to digging it up and living off the proceeds. What with being a serial killer and all.

This is confounding on several levels. First of all, you're trying to find things for the PC to be good at, but the player should be trying to find things that they can do with their character to a certain extent. At the time of creation, you want to give your players some guidance about what kinds of skills and talents will serve them best. It sounds like you're trying to curate their experience and build the world around the PCs, which means that you are doing all the heavy lifting.

The players should, but that presumes a level of pro activeness that I don't often get. My players are busy people who don't have time to do such stuff. Personally I'm not convinced by that, but the have families and jobs and all that boring tedium. So i feel obligated to find things for them to do. Normally I don't see this is a problem, but the trader doesn't really sit well with the rest and the graverobber, in character, has voiced that he doesn't fele compelled to keep getting beaten up by Skaven. That's understandable, however the hook involved hisparticular skillset in the first place. He was hired to dig something up at the graveyard so he is involved. The problem was I had the NPC paid him up front (because starting characters have fuck all, even traders).

I generally prefer to let the players choose their characters and then write off of that.

What I'm seeing here is that you're trying to build the story around the players, and they have been going along with it for a while, but it's not a perfect fit. And since they're used to being passengers in this story, they're not taking initiative. You have encouraged this to some extent by spoon-feeding them a story. Give your players some hooks that their characters will care about, and let them run with it a bit.

I don't think it's quite true to say they aren't taking initiative. They are working with what they are given and doing stuff - rescuiug the magister for instance is certainly taking the initiative.

I'm not sure what hooks to give them. That's the issue. Other than the witch. The trader really stands out in this respect. But that's what random haracter creation does for you.

I'm not saying they aren't enjoying it. I don't know 100%. What i'm saying is that could be a problem.

Do you? Not everything in the world makes sense at first glance; it's OK to have dangling threads. And if your players are starting to be disengaged from this storyline, they aren't going to give a shit about your need to have everything "make sense." They just want you to get to the fireworks factory.

I think there's a difference between dangling threads and confusing players. My concern is the latter. It is my experience that unresolved or dangling threads make the players think there is some relevance to them they are missing. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. In real life there's all sorts of 'dangling threads', stuff we don't understand and don't resolve. BUt this isn't real life, it's a game and so if iyou put something before the players they will assume it to be important (of course if you're a skilled GM maybe you can change that).

That can't possibly be severe enough to derail your campaign. Are your players sitting around complaining about inconsistency?

No. No one has complained as yet. I'm just picking up on a feeling. I may be completely wrong. When you play with friends a lot of stuff can be forgiven because you know each other. Or they could be enjoying themselves and thinking its the best game the've ever played in.

As for severity. My issue is finding ways to move forward with getting even more convoluted.

In all your descriptions, it's hard for me to understand exactly what the problem is. You're describing things in terms of the in-game plot, but that's very backwards. What do your players seem to be unhappy about? What are they saying? Forget about the damn game plot for a second; talk about the humans sitting at the table.

The problem is moving the story on without either railroading the players or creating increasingly convoluted webs of story while engaging each of them in their choice of characcter: witch, graverobber and trader.

The only thing I hear you saying about your players is that one of them is complaining in-character of a lack of proper motivation. I agree that this is a big red flag, but it doesn't reach the level of fucking up your campaign. Your very description of this problem suggests to me that you're far more interested in your in-game fiction than your players are. Which is a problem. The most important thing is how engaged you and the players are, and I'm not hearing much about that.

I am interested in it of course, but I'm happy to change it or move away from it as necessary. But i've already set up certain things and so abandoning that would just further complicate things. Saying "fuck it, let's fight some orcs", for example, would just be a shitty bait and switch.

 

[Edgewise]

Essentially: a powerful cult leader wants to reinvigorate himself using the witch whose ancestor mortally wounded him. To do this he needs to bring about the appearance of the chaos moon.

OK, that was much better.

The players should, but that presumes a level of pro activeness that I don't often get. My players are busy people who don't have time to do such stuff.

Well, I don't know if it's a time thing, but I hear you that players certainly vary in terms of their level of initiative. Let's be honest: it's not an easy issue to address.

I'm not sure what hooks to give them. That's the issue. Other than the witch. The trader really stands out in this respect. But that's what random haracter creation does for you.

My own personal inclination would be to create hooks to smaller events. I feel like you're giving them hooks into a very meaty and involved plotline, which is fine, but I would sprinkle in plenty of small unrelated (mis)adventures. Those can start small but then balloon into entire campaigns when a player really engages with a storyline in a way that created consequences.

I'm not sure how you're coming up with your primary plotline, but I get the feeling that you've mapped out a lot of ideas before the players get involved. My suggestion is to start with smaller isolated episodes, and let the plotlines emerge through interaction and just seeing what the players respond to.

It is my experience that unresolved or dangling threads make the players think there is some relevance to them they are missing.

Well, that's a bit of metagaming on their part, and it's easy enough to curtail that kind of thought by talking directly to the players as the GM to tell them that thing aren't always neat and that not every unanswered question leads to something interesting.

Besides, if they aren't enjoying this main plotline, I suspect they won't care about dangling details if they have the chance to do something more interesting. Assuming that's even the case.

The problem is moving the story on without either railroading the players or creating increasingly convoluted webs of story while engaging each of them in their choice of characcter: witch, graverobber and trader.

Do you really need to move "The Story" forward, or just A Story. It doesn't have to be one big interconnected narrative. Maybe someone wants to hire them to kill some goblins, ya know?

Saying "fuck it, let's fight some orcs", for example, would just be a shitty bait and switch.

That's not abandoning anything, necessarily. When you put it this way, it sounds like you're not so much offering hooks as insisting upon them. If they are pursuing the main storyline and someone offers them some other kind of job, that doesn't mean they can't return to the big story afterwards. You give them a choice about what to pursue next. They can say "no."

You can set aside all my suggestions if you consider this one: just talk to your players. Don't ask them what's wrong with the campaign; ask them what they would really like to be doing with their characters. Ask them if they are getting enough of what they want to do. There's no reason for there to be any mysteries.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Last session went pretty well actually.

I used the Endeavour rules to adjudicate them spending the morning trying to scrape together some coin to hire a coach. This is an example, I think, of a good rpg system. Rolling on the 'events' table inspired me to generate some bad weather which fed into the interaction as they haggled for a price. I also like using bad weather to foreshadow bad things happening. It's pure cheese, but i do it all the time.

When they got to Frederheim they all had something they could do. The trader's ability to read and interact helped get them inside the Hospice. They then went to the cell where Von Zaniken was supposed to be, but it wasn' thim it was someone else mutated by the Skaven. That person became unstable and turned into a sort of rat monster. Meanwhile in another cell was an NPC inmate who has a past of being a violent vigilante. He sensed trouble and kept shouting that he could help and that he should be freed. Fortunately the graverobber took hold of this and engineered his release as they got out of the cell before the monster could attack.

Meanwhile the cult members they had already met turned up.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

So one of the players is away for a while and thus things reached a natural pause. In real time the characters have only been doing stuff for 3 days!

I think the biggest take away for me is that crafting adventures requires simplicity. I love coming up with ideas and characters. But it is very easy to devise something super-convoluted. I do this not intentionally but because I want the players to be engaged with something that they will enjoy filled with entertaining twists. But that perhaps works better as a spectator and not a participant.

That said I think people are enjoying themselves. We resovled the affairs at Frederheim and the inmate released helped them, dying in the process. He left them his 'stash' at a nearby village. They went there and fought some zombies. I was able to use that situation to advance things meaningfully it not explicitly. One fun thing was getting the witch character to show how dangerous she could be to the other characters making their relationship a little uneasy. This was not railroaded nor scripted. In fact the witch had taken a point of corruption and i gave her a note (i love handing players notes) saying that if she behaved aggressively toward the others in response she could heal her corruption. This she did, and recovered. So now the players know magic can be dangerous.

It is a little confusing for the player dealing with the lore of magic insofar as planing ahead for where he wants the PC to go. That is, you get access to certain options ahead of time that will be of no use until later on. EG: you can learn channelling before you get to learn spells taht use it. While not terribly complicated conceptually, it isn't something that's super apparent because it's based on setting concepts.

The rules aren't too bad, though I'm sure I've made lots of mistakes. It's still swingy. The rulebnook, errata notwithstanding (i'm not using it until I can download a copy of the pdf that incorporates it. I own the print book which of course can't be updated), is all over the place though. I know that at least one of the characters is using the wrong characteristics for his advances because of the errata but frankly rather than confuse the player for C7's design fuck ups we'll just leave it as it is for now.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Playing this again on Wednesday, picking up where we left off. Haven't played in a month due to people going pnholiday. Probably forgotten the rules.

So I'm struggling to make an encounter interesting. The heroes are to retrieve the doomsword proper. Currently they have the pommel. The sword is in an old abandoned Abbey out in the middle of nowhere (couldn't think of anywhere more interesting). The last people that had the sword were a group of knights. They all died and left but hind their squire who took it to this place before dying. Now his spirit guards it.

What can we do with that. Fightings not an option besides that would be dull.

 

[PolarBlues]

In fiction, the sort of situation you describe often the spirit is there to prevent the item (you sword) falling in the wrong hands, the implication being that there are "right hands" the item can be passed on to after which the spirit can finally rest. So, are the character's worthy of this sword and if so how can they prove it?

Alternatively the stories about guardian spirits might just be stories. Collecting the sword is the easy bit (unless you want to throw in some Indiana Jones style traps. The hard bit comes after with the not-Nazis waiting outside the Abbey to take sword off the party.

 

[AsenRG]

In fiction, the sort of situation you describe often the spirit is there to prevent the item (you sword) falling in the wrong hands, the implication being that there are "right hands" the item can be passed on to after which the spirit can finally rest. So, are the character's worthy of this sword and if so how can they prove it?

Alternatively the stories about guardian spirits might just be stories. Collecting the sword is the easy bit (unless you want to throw in some Indiana Jones style traps. The hard bit comes after with the not-Nazis waiting outside the Abbey to take sword off the party.

Or both, as seen in one of the IJ movies!

 

[Ghost Whistler]

In fiction, the sort of situation you describe often the spirit is there to prevent the item (you sword) falling in the wrong hands, the implication being that there are "right hands" the item can be passed on to after which the spirit can finally rest. So, are the character's worthy of this sword and if so how can they prove it?

Alternatively the stories about guardian spirits might just be stories. Collecting the sword is the easy bit (unless you want to throw in some Indiana Jones style traps. The hard bit comes after with the not-Nazis waiting outside the Abbey to take sword off the party.

That sounds like a good idea. Testing the worthy.

Problem is...players

Ok, so a test. The sword was once used by one of the characters' (a witch) ancestors to smite the Big Bad. She doesn't know this yet. So there would need to be a connection here otherwise the problems I bought up earlier (me being too clever-clever) will persist. So the spirit might recognise that part of her and choose to test her somehow. Perhaps a fight with a mighty dragon, perhaps not

EDIT i thought about having the villains show up and take the sword, which might actually work for the plot, however it feels like cheating the players. I'm uncomfortable with how that might go as players will not just give up without a fight.

 

[Edgewise]

So, are the character's worthy of this sword and if so how can they prove it?

I think this is a very good idea, and I'd like to add that I always like to provide the option of unworthy characters using it at a steep cost - it could be as simple as inflicting damage on the wielder or a more elaborate curse.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Or both, as seen in one of the IJ movies!

The penitent man....rolls natural 1! Did you need your head?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I think this is a very good idea, and I'd like to add that I always like to provide the option of unworthy characters using it at a steep cost - it could be as simple as inflicting damage on the wielder or a more elaborate curse.

It is, but I dont' want the Abbey to be filled with weird traps and swinging blades as that feels very contrived.

 

[PolarBlues]

.

EDIT i thought about having the villains show up and take the sword, which might actually work for the plot, however it feels like cheating the players. I'm uncomfortable with how that might go as players will not just give up without a fight.

No one said the villains get the sword. They just show up and wanting to get the sword from the players, and then we see what happens. Maybe the party wins, maybe the party loses, maybe they come up with a fair trade and offer lots of money.

It doesn't have to be The Villians. It could be a different set of villains or just another interested party.

 

[AsenRG]

It is, but I dont' want the Abbey to be filled with weird traps and swinging blades as that feels very contrived.

I thought the idea was that touching the sword inflicts the damage.

My suggestion: have the villains show up at the same time. The guardian spirit calls both parties to justify their pretenses to the sword, and doesn't consider factions that have been created after its death to mean anything.
Then give the villain some good arguments, some good stats, and keep a real tally of who presented better arguments, to give the villains an actual chance to get the sword!