The only problem I have with this is that it makes the breaking of the vision of the future a near certainty, assuming the PCs take an active role. Either one or the other is killed at the hands of the PC's, the game is up.
Personally, I like my "future visions" to have a much more diffuse picture of what needs to be done, to allow for more true player participation.
Well written, though, and provides all the necessary components for an interesting oneshot adventure, if the bad guys are a bit thin. I honestly can't see this sort of thing developing into an epic goal, though, as some have suggested.
Personal preference here, but I tend to prefer adventures that can be summed up very neatly and very succinctly. I couldn't even begin to sum this up in a few breaths.
My players prefer the simpler concepts, things that can be related in very short order, details aside. "Kill the bad guy, get the girl." Unfortunately in this one, there's just too much going on to do that effectively. My players would lose focus.
That said, the execution of the idea is excellent, but there's too much history to make this an effective plot in our game. It would be different if the backstory had actually happened to the PC's, perhaps in a different incarnation of the same world, but as it stands, there's too much history for my players to pay attention to.
As noted, my opinion of your story was simply a preference. I find that if you include that much detail, the work that goes into the detail tends to get lost in the shuffle, making that work ultimately pointless, except as an exercise in creative writing for a DM. If the plots are overly complicated, the players will boil down a plot to it's basics, as was done by "EchoMirage", and the work put in will be fairly useless in the grand scheme.
For that reason, the broad strokes of ANY plot of mine are fairly simple and straightforward. It allows for a player to not lose the forest through all those damn trees, and it reduces the amount of information a DM must keep handy, thus speeding up the game.
If the players lose sight of the main objective for some reason, because of an overload of detail, the game is going to lose cohesion to the point of fracture. You'll end up getting questions like "So, who is this guy, again? What's his deal here? And he's doing what, in the story, again? What's all this then?"
Your story was interesting, but ultimately, I found it far too involved for a player to really care about. If I tried to present that story to my players, they would probably shut down until I was done reading, and then go, "ok, long story short, we have to do what?"
Yes, we are a simpler breed, but we like our games like that, and it was simply a note to indicate why I gave it a lower rating. Go to Comment
I haven't missed the point, I rated this idea as high as I found it useful and appropriate for a game that I would run.
If I get lost in the details of a story's history and background before I ever get to the meat of the story, that story has taken a serious down turn for me. I place SERIOUS value on always being able to see the forest through the trees. In every great story, regardless of poetic licence, the goal is never lost. I felt that, in this story, the goal was lost to the details.
I was under the impression that this site was about personally rating the ideas as you deem appropriate. You have been given an alternate viewpoint of this idea. For someone like me, who likes that goal to be front and center, the implementation of this idea doesn't work very well. As noted in my original comment, this is simply personal opinion.
I tried to be as generous as possible, in thinking beyond my own personal need, which is the only reason this idea got a 3/5 from me. Someone, other than me, like you guys, might find it to be a good story and background, with the right group of players. If I were to rate this idea exclusively for myself, I would rate it 1/5 at best, given that it has no value to me personally. But, given that it was decently executed, even though the point seemed to get lost in the details to me, maybe someone finds it useful. Obviously some people did find it useful, and good for them. YMMV, mine did.
Perhaps it's at this point that we simply agree to disagree...? Go to Comment
Got to be honest, to my thinking, the hook is too weak to attract anything but a passing interest from the party. They might help a weakened druid in the forest, heal him and such, but aside from that, they would probably go on their merry way.
This might be good for an encounter, or series of encounters, if the PC's haven't got anything to do, but this is the sort of thing that I would personally use as an interlude, rather than a fully fledged adventure. Go to Comment
I like this one a lot. It's generic, the concept is clear but still one that is original(at least I've never thought about resonating stones like that), and it's easy to plunk in anywhere in a game. You could even expand it to be a campaign goal with enough twisting. 5/5 Go to Comment
The big problem with this one is getting the PCs to give a damn about it. Money can only motivate one so far(ie Katerin paying the PCs for their assistance). If I were to use a scenario like this, I would have to use characters that the PCs both knew and cared about. This would require a few games of setup for me to accomplish. Otherwise, if no suitable reward were in order, what's the point of risking one's neck? My players are not TERRIBLY mercenary, but even still, if one is going to risk one's neck, they'd like it to either be for a decent amount of reward, OR for people they actually give a damn about(which they often do for free)(they are not exactly "quixotic"). 2/5 Go to Comment
Yeah, this sort of thing is something that *I* would do as a player, I never even thought of this. Next time I run into a troll as a player, you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be looking to do this. AWESOME...
About the shortness, sometimes ideas don't need a long writeup to explain them. As far as I am concerned, the short length of the writeup does not diminish the coolness of the idea.
5/5, easily. One of the best simple ideas I've seen in a long time. Go to Comment
Well... I can tell you what MY players would do in this instance: ignore the plea. My guys are BIG on doing what's right and just, and evil dragons are sort of beyond redemption in their eyes. If they KNEW they couldn't kill the dragon, they would simply let it die on it's own, if they thought that's what would happen. Otherwise they'd probably inform the nearest uber-wizard that there's a weak dragon that needs killing, and they'll tell him where it is for a finders fee of the treasure. Go to Comment
This would go over really well for my players. One of them plays a cleric of Thor, known for their love of drink. He'd probably have a LOT to say about this edict. ;)
It's a great way to introduce the realities of thieves guilds to the world. I find that a lot of campaigns don't put a lot of consideration into the impact and power that thieves guilds would likely have, if they were modelled on mob families(as I tend to do in my campaigns).
I think this is ripe for a plucking... yes, I shall pluck this idea and use it... 5/5 Go to Comment
It's the bit about the 15000 paladins and the place remaining "neutral" that gets me. Not to start a holy war or anything, but in OUR game, Paladins are charged with seeking out evil and fighting it, not simply locking themselves into their own insular world of harmony and ignoring what's going on around them.
For more than a tinge of unbelievability(an impregnable fortress? how many truly impregnable fortresses exist, none), I have to give this a 2/5 Go to Comment
Agreed, after all, even if one knows where they need to go, there is the slight matter of getting there in one piece.
"I need to find an Item of Staggeringly Overpowered Omnipotence, where could one be...?" says the adventurer
GWORMPH!! "You'll find that here" sez da map...
"But... that's in the Gorge of Eternal Peril!!"
"Well, it's, like, perilous and stuff, for, like, a really long time."
"HEY! No map is going to talk to me like that!! HAVE AT YOU!!!"
To be honest, this sort of thing is just BEGGING for a plot. Make the map be mysteriously found by an adventuring party, with "you are here" X'd on it or something, then the party gets all nonchalant about it, geez, that's useful, now we know where WE are, great, how about telling us something useful, like where a treasure hoard is, ya dumb map! GWORMPH!! Treasure Hoard here(X)... DUDE, NO WAY!!!! DM rubs his hands gleefully as the party marches off to certain doom... these silly PC's these days...
Sorry, but I take sadistic pleasure in pointing the party directly at some greed inducing treasure and then punishing them for their insolence at thinking they could actually get their hands on it. ;)
Just for my own sick sense of sadistic pleasure, this gets 5/5. I'm *SO* using a map like this in this way. Go to Comment
I like the idea, but the water thing is a problem if you use this as a simple setting inside another, larger campaign. Everyone has to drink, and if they forget about the outside world when they drink, they won't even think that they are cursed, so they won't seek out a way to break the curse that they forgot they have(realistically). That would end up in a serious black hole of the world scenario.
Although, that could bring lots of interesting problems to a given spot. If nobody leaves, ever, but people still keep going into that area, the population is going to SKYROCKET to the point of complete saturation(and eventual self-destruction, probably from starvation and simple lack of space to move).
Remove the cursed water bit, and you've got a place that would make for quite a few interesting adventures. 4/5 Go to Comment
It would be cool if they were smaller, and they could like leap and stuff. You could attach them to the bottom of plates and mugs and such, and wizards could punish their apprentices by having their plates walk away. "You are done eating, young apprentice... *skitter*" ;) Go to Comment
This actually got me to thinking about a vertical dungeon, like a mine or something, but where most of the corridors are vertical instead of horizontal. Most often, people in a dungeon skip over the parts where you're walking down a corridor. What if you had to rappel down each corridor or climb ropes back up? This would make the encounter with a wandering monster VERY interesting. I was thinking about the movie "Them!", a nuclear mutation of ants, maybe the ants could be like crawling around in their caves and such, and attack as they are easily climbing and moving around(they have no problems with the corridors being vertical). I can see something like this being particularly deadly, though, if you have long vertical drops and encounters in those drops. "The bug knocks you off your rope, you drop 200 feet to your death." Ah well, something to consider. Go to Comment
Animal cruelty aside(it's an imaginary rat, after all), I actually like this concept. Not so sure about the "lockpicking" bit, though. But if you need to weaken a wood structure somewhat imperceptibly, just put one of these at a key structural point and wait. Something to consider when talking about the mideaval equivalent of insurance fraud(such as it is). Maybe to take out a rival's store or something? Go to Comment
How is the party supposed to figure out the cause? Even if they find the "ex-barrel", they aren't going to know that it slowly leaked into the water table, they just don't have enough knowledge to connect the two.
How do they avoid a similar fate?
(plus which, and I know it's fantasy, etc, but one gallon of toxic waste causing this? Sounds like potent stuff) Go to Comment
Personally, I would have preferred a more complete description of this ONE orb, what were the intended magics for this orb? The only reason I ask is because I read this site for ideas, and this one seems to need a little more fleshing out before I can use it for MY purposes, which is to pick and choose the best ideas and throw them together in my own special way. ;)
In the Middle Ages, and even up to the early twentieth century, most of Europe's executioners were related: the Sansons and Deiblers in France, the Pierrepoints in England, etc. The reason for this was that, it generally not being socially acceptable to, well, kill people, executioners and their children could, generally, only marry other executioners or their children.
The parallels with massively inbred, Hapsburg-style dynasties are obvious- imagine a rather clever but politically inept satirist noting this, and being sentenced by the latter to a meeting with the former; even worse, imagine a dynasty of deranged and deformed executioners- think Texas Chaisaw Massacre with government funding.