Those are all really good ideas about removing the curse. I'm just trying to think of a way of combining them (i.e. would it be possible to cherish the bow for a year (Strolen) whilst not using it (Shadoweagle)? Possibly; cherishing could just include things like correctly oiling the wood (and other such things to keep it in good condition) daily whilst giving praise to the bowmaker. Go to Comment
Nicely detailed and fully described. I like them, but when does the curse allow the bow to be used without the blinding?? The user must go around blind folded/blinded, but there is a chance that it could be useful to them, because they might have an ablility to fight blind or in the dark. Go to Comment
Yes, it's a dungeon crawl, but I like the setting...kind of like a trek through Unseen University (see the Discworld books.)
Also, it seems a dungeon crawl because the University is all you really fleshed out. Give more work to the other locations and people of the city, and there will be more opportunity for different types of play. Go to Comment
Interesting idea, but it doesn't really stand to reason that armed raiders, unless OBVIOUSLY underage or poorly armed, would not be taken seriously by seasoned killers. I think a better way to teach this lesson might be to add a human dimension to a more obvious threat - like a troll wandering the countryside looking for a new home because his was destroyed by a cave collapse. You would make sure the players see the troll first, giving them the option of combat or parlay (or avoiding entirely). If they choose combat, punish them by making sure they get banged up (they don't necessarily need to die). If they choose to parlay, reward them by having the troll give them something special or perhaps promise to help them in the future for helping him find a new home. If they avoid interaction completely, you could make the situation more compelling by having a villager(s) come back in a panic saying that a troll had been spotted and the party is asked to help. Go to Comment
I agree with Anonymous. The choice should be up to the players - not the GM. If the GM attacks them with warriors - regardless of whether they're skilled or not, the party won't know that immediately - what party with half a brain wouldn't defend themselves? I mean come on. Think of today. If some guy jumped out of the bushes and started fighting you, you'd have little choice but to fight back. You might not hurt him, but you would defend yourself. The troll idea was good because this allows a choice - attack the troll, which is evil, or not. Then set up the consequences for the action. Yes, this doesn't fit into the plot as given, but the idea of his comment was to take choice away from the GM and to the players. It'd always better to have players get into trouble for their own choices rather than have the gm railroad them into trouble. This plot has a good idea which just needs to be adjusted slightly to incorperate that point. Go to Comment
I don't agree with the original Anonymous. If some guy jumped out of the bushes like the situation in the previous post, yes you would defend yourself. But when it was obvious that the guy couldn't hurt you too much; that you are that much better than him, will you pull out out your knife or pistol or fist or what have you and kill him? No, you wouldn't, and that is the point that this encouter is trying to make. And Strolen is right, adding a troll would strip the encounter of its human dimension. In fact, it would change the entire thing. Why would the tribe care if the troll was slaughtered? As the idea was given, they wouldn't. It IS an entirely different plot. Go to Comment
According to the Journals of Lord Goidol, the people of the Southern Cities wear heavy coats all the year round, despite the stifling tropical heat. They claim that to do otherwise angers the gods, and it is true that visitors who refuse to don the local garb are often struck down with a paralytic fever.