[Circle of Hands} Venture Prep

[Vernon R]

So I've been playing with the venture prep tools and having fun with it but I'm a little worried that I'm making it too simple x is the bad guy and y is the good guy and the tripwires seem problematic. I'm looking for advice on whether this is a workable scenario, how to tweak it if it's not and point out where i'm stuck in classic scenario prep thinking.

The dice rolls were 6 1 6 giving me an adventure in Spurr.  The first component, Rbaja interference.  That's nice, makes sense in Spurr greedy merchant mages.  The second component is Amboriyon interferrence.  Ouch, looks like I've got a Yojimbo/Fistful of dollars situation here. 

I have names picked out for these guys in my notes somewhere but I cant find them at the moment so placeholders for now. 

So for the first element.  Rbaja interference.

Npc 1> Merchant Mage.  Has come to this village set at the mouth of a major river, source of possible trade riches of interest to his merchantile consortium(?) back in one of the larger cities.  He wants to end resistance and get the people working for him; is willing to use magic, threats and offers riches to those who will join with him.  Has many zombies  under his command.  Stats 5B 2Q 4W 8C

Npc 2> Mercenary Raider.  Lothar - commands a groups of raiders who brought the Mage to the village and provided him a foothold until his magic could sway the balance.  Their own  village was destroyed when a Rbaja zone grew and made it unlivable.  The merchants have offered the village as a new home in exchange for their aid.  Lothar worries about new signs of Rbaja that have begun to show. Stats 5B 8Q 2W 4C

Location: I'm thinking something based on this.  http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/friday-map-esrans-isle-a-fantasy-city/
but smaller, less city more village.  The mage and his minions have taken up the northern side of the river.

The tripwire - If the mage is killed and Lothar hasnt been dealt with in some way he and his raiders will sail back to the consortium and return with a more powerful wizard.

The second element.  Amboriyon interference.

NPC 1> The Baron.  Wants to regain rule of his town. Is holed up behind a wooden palisade on the Island with his remaining warriors.  Willing to do almost anything to regain control but hasnt given in to all the priests demands yet.  Stats - most problematic

NPC 2> The priest.  Has become a wizard of amboriyon.  Old and frail he relies on sacrifices to do his magic but is a complete believer in Amboriyon.  Ideally he would turn the entire area into an Amboriyon zone.  Stats B2 Q4 W8 C5

Tripwire - If the Palisade is overun the Baron will allow the wizard to sacrifice whatever and whoever he wants and he will cast wrath.


   

[Ron Edwards]

I've been looking forward to talking about this stuff.

1. Rbaja + Amboriyon in Spurr! What a great setup, a real Shadows-Vorlon showdown situation. My immediate thought is to point to the recent edit I just made in pen on my hard copy, which of course none of you can see, where I crossed out the word "interference" and substituted "presence." I'm also scribbling all over the section in Chapter 4 about the two of them, and the relevant creatures summary in Chapter 7, about how neither Rbaja nor Amboriyon are plotting or scheming or infiltrating - they aren't conspiracies. They don't have goals. They are not political. They simply destroy reality, relatively slowly, in particular ways, and neither one likes the other's way.

2. I like the NPCs well enough, and you seem to have a pretty good tie-in to the geography (ain't Dyson a treasure?). The only thing that confuses me a little is the Amboriyon wizard doing "sacrifices." What does that mean?

3. Let's talk about tripwires. I'm realizing that I need to explain that they exist relative to the potential benefit or opportunity from the Circle's point of view. In this case, the issue is not opportunity or derring-do, but rather raw war, in concentrated form, and in this case, on two fronts. The knights are there to defeat Rbaja (that's the one they know about at the start), period.

So each tripwire means that much more likely that this goal, the biggie, the point, the "why we came," will fail.

Clearly your Amboriyon tripwire is nicely suited to that, and I like it very much. However, the Rbaja one isn't. It's a big "so what" relative to the reason the knights have come. I confess that making it a simple mirror (someone casts Distort) is not very interesting, and I think it's because your merchant-wizard isn't anywhere near as interesting as he should be. What if the guy is like one of our asshole-not-a-genius State Dept guys, who thinks he's the best thing that ever happened to this place, and is there to turn it around? All smiles and good intentions, nothing but blight and vileness in every touch. With characters like him and Lothar, the tripwire can be way more interesting over there on the Rbaja side.

Or whatever kind of person you want to make this character; you don't have to listen to me. Consider, an Rbaja merchant-wizard - is that cool or what? Come up with whatever personality and plans you want, and consider that a tripwire is this character being driven over the edge, and that whatever it unleashes ruins the reason the knights came here in the first place.

4. Really work on your locations. They need to be scary, fascinating, colorful places, locations you can be proud of and see being illustrated by the best fantasist visionaries possible.

Best, Ron

[Nyhteg]

Wow, thanks Ron for that info (and thanks Vernon for posting your prep in the first place), that's some very useful insight...

>>The knights are there to defeat Rbaja (that's the one they know about at the start), period.

And the tripwire ruins that intent - not just 'makes it harder' but makes it impossible?
So in this situation a valid tripwire might be something that triggers the population into standing alongside the Rbaja dude against the knights?

I don't know if this is the right thread to mention it, but for some reason the component that consistently leaves me with a puzzled look on my face is "Opportunity for Rolke". Can't find a creative trigger. Can you talk a bit about the sort of situations you're imagining for that, Ron?

G

[Ron Edwards]

I have to clarify one thing right now: the overall venture fails only if all tripwires are hit.

What I'm talking about in the post above is about prep. During prep, think about tripwires as disasters per component. That's fine. It's a preparatory device.

But in play, and in thinking about play, do not compartmentalize them. It's the opposite of the per-component prep. The venture fails if all tripwires are hit. It's not like Part A fails if Part A Tripwire is hit.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh yeah,

So in this situation a valid tripwire might be something that triggers the population into standing alongside the Rbaja dude against the knights?

Sure. That's a nice contrast to the straightforward other tripwire too.

Again: such a thing happening would not ruin the success of the venture, but it would indeed make it much harder or impose a higher cost, or otherwise turn the whole situation grimmer and more fucked-up to deal with.

Only if both tripwires are hit is the default assumption of venture success overturned for real.

[Nyhteg]

So 'making things impossible' is too strong a phrase to use in relation to a single component.

Using the 'stand with the Rbaja dude' tripwire as an example, if that's hit the knights could deal with it in any way they like, up to and including genocide, and still pull off a 'successful mission' as long as the white wizard over in the other component doesn't freak out and cast Wrath. Or vice versa.

But the moment both tripwires have been triggered the pooch is screwed.
The goal for the PCs then becomes...what? Simply survive long enough to get out of Dodge?
I suppose the goal can be anything they choose, with the baseline understanding that nothing they can do from there on in will result in a win for Rolke. Do you tend to play things out at that point or drop into wrap-up mode?

And can I just confirm - there is no mechanical effect whatsoever from an unsuccessful mission, is that right?
The PCs all still get to improve stats afterwards, the king reigns on in Rolke, the fiction maybe shifts a bit (locally) based on what occurred, but basically, functionally, nothing is any different between a failure and a success?
Players get a warm glow or a shed a single tear (or I don't know just shrug, oh well, sucks to be them...) then move on?
Is there a narrative element I'm missing somewhere, like a new mission flows from the last in some way that makes success or failure matter, or is it just...that's how it is?

G

[Ron Edwards]

So 'making things impossible' is too strong a phrase to use in relation to a single component.

Unless there's just one.

But the moment both tripwires have been triggered the pooch is screwed.
The goal for the PCs then becomes...what? Simply survive long enough to get out of Dodge?
I suppose the goal can be anything they choose, with the baseline understanding that nothing they can do from there on in will result in a win for Rolke. Do you tend to play things out at that point or drop into wrap-up mode?

I'm still working out how to discuss the endings of adventures. Right now I'll hold off until I get the chance to post to John's Althea thread. For now, here, I'll say "anything they choose" is the best answer.

And can I just confirm - there is no mechanical effect whatsoever from an unsuccessful mission, is that right?
...
Is there a narrative element I'm missing somewhere, like a new mission flows from the last in some way that makes success or failure matter, or is it just...that's how it is?

That's just how it is.

The characters care about the adventures as missions. The players are not bound by that. They may or may not care, or if they care, may or may not make a priority of it. All I want the players to care about are the characters as dynamic, viscerally-engaging, perhaps thought-provoking people. Caring about either the immediate situations of the adventures, or the realm as a whole, is a variable means toward that end.

[Moreno R.]

I still don't get how "tripwires" work.

Concrete example, my first playtest (the only one I GMed), the one with "monster"(a Wyrm) as the only component. The tripwire was "entering in his lair before having dealt with the wyrm".

I am not sure it was a correct tripwire. Sure, I practically did steal it from the example in the draft, but... what would have happened if it was triggered? My thoughts was the Wyrm would have fought to the death (instead of fleeing away if wounded, as it would have done if fought elsewhere) with advantage for the knowledge of the lair and a single die for the vs12 rolls for the knights for the foreign terrain.

But this don't guarantee the wyrm's victory. It could be defeated (looking at the array of spells, and as weak was the wyrm in the first draft, with B and Q lower than the ones of a single knight, I would still bet on the knights, even in that situation)

Or the Wyrm could have won the battle even outside his lair, defeating the knights, with enough luck with dice and enought tactical errors from the players.

How can you make the tripwire a defeat condition without resorting to story before and illusionism?

[Ron Edwards]

You are not thinking about this right!

The "defeat" is a long-term, post-adventure, non-play issue. It's about whether the outcome of the knights' journey benefited Rolke. It is about the adventure. It's not anything that happens in the adventure in play-terms, except for the brief description associated with the tripwire. It has nothing to do with killing or not killing the wyrm, solving or not solving an immediate problem for a given person, or the characters surviving or not surviving.

All you have to do is come up with something the special-effects team will work really hard on, showcasing the most impressive and/or dangerous thing that can happen for that particular component and its details. Then put it in there as the result of hitting the tripwire. If it happens in play, then how it happens and what happens in play because of it should depend absolutely and only on the current situations in play, which are not predictable or planned. And that is all.

Please do not try to create a Swiss-watch mechanism out of (i) the tripwire, (ii) the specific in-play ending of the adventure, and (iii) the large-scale, after-effects outcome of the adventure. This is not a Euro board-game. It does not "all tie together."

Again, a lot of what I need to say here is best framed as a response to John in his thread.

[John W]

I knew I was going to catch it when I posted "Althea"... ;-)

[Moreno R.]

The "defeat" is a long-term, post-adventure, non-play issue. It's about whether the outcome of the knights' journey benefited Rolke. It is about the adventure. It's not anything that happens in the adventure in play-terms, except for the brief description associated with the tripwire. It has nothing to do with killing or not killing the wyrm, solving or not solving an immediate problem for a given person, or the characters surviving or not surviving.

OK, so it's something like this (using the wyrm venture as an example):

1) The knights don't enter the wyrm's lair, so they don't activate the tripwire. No matter what happen, they can be alive at the end or die, they can defeat the Wyrm or not, but the end result (after the end of the adventure) is beneficial to Rolke?

2) The knights enter the wyrm's lair, so they activate the tripwire. No matter what happen, they can be alive at the end or die, they can defeat the Wyrm or not, but the end result (after the end of the adventure) is not beneficial to Rolke?

But if it's "after the adventure"... how this enter the game? (in technical terms: how this enter the shared imagined space - as in "how it's shared"?)

[Ron Edwards]

Moreno, yes and yes, although for #2, yes if the wyrm is the only component.

It enters play during the last few moments of the session, if anyone cares. In my experience they typically do, at least enough to be interested in a brief summary.

[Vernon R]

Excellent, thanks for the discussion everyone tripwires was one of the things I wanted to discuss in regards to this prep and I think it's been cleared up for me at least.

The other aspect I was having trouble getting my head around was the Rbaja wizard.  I think I was a bit trapped mentally in the typical necromancer idea evil villain out to kill everyone and promote death and destruction.  It was hard to give him human goals and wants where he wouldnt be just evil and beyond human comprehension.  It took me a bit but I think the part about Rbaja wanting to warp reality into it's own form set something off in my mind.  The killing and animating the dead isnt a goal it's a means to a goal and that works really well with the whole merchantile, capitalism at its worst aspect of the description of Spurr.  So for the Wizard his view is that this is how the world works, the Rbaja way is truth and he has the opportunity to control things which is much better than being under it's control, living or dead makes no difference as long as they serve his goal of controlling goods.  He's under some pressure, if he fails here he will surely be replaced by another member of the consortium so he is willing to take risks.  The visuals should be easy.  Lots of signs of crosses throughout the controlled portion of the village with zombie's with strands of rope remaining around their wrists from those who resisted and were crucified. 

The tripwire I'll change so if he's able to gain control of 2 of the 3 area's (north of the river, island fort, south of the river) then Rbaja gains enough control to turn the area into their own.  So he could get the people to join him as Gethyn suggested or conquer with zombies and raiders.

That does lead to one question though.  What would be the best way to handle major NPC vs NPC action?  I think I'd have it come down to how the Knights handle the NPC's involved, and something as big as a battle would definitely be something the Knights wouldnt miss happening.

Oh the Amboriyon mage doing sacrifices, that was a simple mistake on my part.  Thought of the spell but didnt go back and check if it was black or white.