Well, both Dobby and Gollum were referenced when I was writting Fflam, but the real idea is portraying the most pathetic of demons, an underling so low that he is generally only summoned by goblins and their ilk and thus is desperate for attention from a real wizard and a chance to regain power lost so long ago he can barely remember it. Go to Comment
I guess some adventurer group brought him to his fall - what else :D
For a silly campaign, he's excellent, though likely to make the PCs show less respect and caution around the next demon they meet... an effect that might be actually desired by the GM. Go to Comment
I see now that I commented on this but forgot to vote when you posted it Scras, for that I apologize. I can't remember if I didn't have any votes left when i saw it. But here it comes.
I have to agree with Dream that this, more than many other NPC's could easily be badly acted out by a less jaded GM and become our familiar but already stereotypical Gollum. But this should not (in my eyes) effect my vote since you so splendidly have provided a nice recipe for this NPC.
A neat little creature designed for some nice humour relief. Go to Comment
If I use Fflam, he will be somewhat modified:
- He will seem sniveling and pitiful, but it is partially an act. While his physical prowess is laughable, his mental faculties are not. The PCs would become more and more assured he was no threat, then he would lead them to their own demise (or so he hopes). Perhaps he would save the dying mage, if and only if the mage fawned at his feet. The desire for power is central to this character. While Dobby and Gollum references are fine, I'd mix in a little Robert Mugabe too. (The once great individual that pathetically clings to whatever power he can gain/retain). Go to Comment
I think Fflam would be wonderful in the hands of a DM with a good sense of humor. However, it would be too easy to make him either a Dobby or a Gollum clone, so a special dose of creativity and imagination are needed.
Always a pleasure to read your fine writing, Scras. Go to Comment
Oh, by the way-
I would like to point out that when I was reading the story, I didn't take any points off for it, but as I read it, it seemed like something was missing, like a paragraph got deleted and you didn't notice, or something.
Might want to check on that. Go to Comment
I too like ancient myths or half-forgotten histories to explain things, both as a GM (allows for plenty of false leads and red herrings) and as a player (much more interesting than the bash-the-monster-and-pinch-the-gold cliche)
The idea that the treasure is ancient knowledge rather than anything physically (like gold or weapons) might not be particularly original (I've used it myself before now as, I would guess, most Strolenites have) but I'm not going to mark you down for that - such treasure can lead to further scenarios
I also like that the treasure has actually been found but nobody knows it - great twist with all sorts of possibilities
I like the twist on the column and the last plot. The detail about the indecipherable shorthand is also good. One of the interesting things about the scroll is that if it's not enchanted it could deteriorate very quickly to the elements. On the whole though if you don't have an artificer in the party it's just another MacGuffin. Go to Comment
Despite the magical properties missing, I loved the twist that the anvil wasn't an anvil at all. No apparent typos/grammatical errors, highly creative, I would have given a 5, if it wasn't for the missing section, but for now you get a 4.5. Think of it as an incentive to finishing it. Go to Comment