A’right, vets!

A’right, vets!

A’right, vets!  New group, new game this Sunday – and I think I’m ready for them.  However, let me ask the lot of you:

I’m going to go in with minimal prep – but I do have this idea based around an old blurb for the Orbs of Dragonkind back in D&D2nd days.  There’s this part of me that really loves the idea of a fantasy world where countries are based on a set of artefacts, and where the very political identities of the people in the world are ultimately connected to who owns and uses what pretty bauble.

This isn’t necessarially something I want to throw out at my players for game one – just a tidbit about the world I want to incorporate into the larger musings on Fronts and campaign that the PCs may never actually encounter unless they go political or a villain leaps out at me that fits the paradigm.

Should I throw this out early, or hold it until later?  

I do /not/ necessarily want to influence my player’s brainstorming sessions – but it is little thing that I, as a GM, want to develop.  If I throw it out there, they’ll riff on the theme – but that ruins it as a surprise for later.

Either game could be good.  Which way would you go?

8 thoughts on “A’right, vets!”

  1. Consider finishing the first adventure and then asking them about the nearest steading. Ask about the orb that the leaders control. Ask about other steadings and what artifacts their leaders possess. I think that’d be the time.

  2. It is background information that their characters would all be very aware of. Depending on the effect that these artefacts have you could trickle information out in response to Spout Lore/Discern Realities.

  3. I would save it for when they interact with places and people this might be relevant, then spring the idea upon them, ask them if they think it is cool and act on the answer.

  4. Ask them a few leading questions before you begin the first session:

    “What is the worst atrocity committed by a possessor of one of the Dragon Orbs?”

    “How did the previous Orbholder of Tharka destroy himself?”

    “What was the surprise twist in the massive battle against the Dragon Xerses?”

  5. Tim Noyce … in truth, ideally?  I don’t want the PCs to know about these artefacts – I think it could be very interesting to have a campaign where, if they chose to pursue politics, they’d slowly come to the realization that the political situation is completely informed by some (perhaps insidious (artefact possession) or nefarious force – it makes the artefacts themselves (or perhaps one or two in particular) the campaign front.

    On the other hand – it’s hard for the PCs to develop these fronts without that knowledge, and.. I feel as though I may be pushing my story too much over theirs.

    Hmm.  This is all good advice, so far.

  6. GMs are players too, if there’s something you’d like to see in the game you have tons of authority to add in details. That said, perhaps you could find a middle ground. Maybe you let them know this is going on but play to find out which items are controlling which areas and what the items do. Maybe the question is: who has the item?

  7. You are only pushing your story if they are not interested in it and you keep making them come back to it, showing and then leaving it for them to go after is perfectly fine.

Comments are closed.