Night Below Session 9
Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:08 AM
If you had burned the place down all of your fancy lewtz would be a pile of ashes.
Only perishables would have been burnt to ashes. They could still have salvaged the precious mineral slag (gold, copper, et al) and jewelry, as well as, the melted weaponry. Obviously magical gear would have survived and they would have garnered the experience from killing the entire force within. To me it seems that in their physical condition prior to the assault that burning that mother to the ground was a cost-effective move.
. . . Thinking back to the character generation, it might have gone better if a few things had been otherwise. First off, I think the group might have worked together in a manner better conducive to success if Hal had stuck to the "no evil characters" line. The characters definitely were not working together . . .
There was definitely an underlying antagonism between the characters in this campaign; but I think that we do a disservice to the players if we identify the cause as simply some were evil, others not so much. When I take a look back on several of the recent series I find it hard to point to very many instances where they worked cohesively, in a united front, outside of combat. And to be honest, the dysfunctional nature of their group often works to their collective benefit. Each of the players bring unique perspectives to the games played and their individual worldviews expressed through their characters are not always going to mesh well - especially when you consider that in this series you have three characters (played by Lindsey, Chris, and James) who are antagonistic towards those inconsiderate situations where things simply do not go their way and another (played by Goggles) whose persistence can only be admired while it annoys his companions.
Posted 16 March 2010 - 05:53 PM
It would be up to Hal if you guys deserved to earn exp from lighting a fire and walking away. I'd think the fire would gain exp.
Yeah, Hal would have to make the call; but I think it would probably be in the favor of the players as they directly caused the death of those within through the use of the fire. After all it’s being used in the same fashion as a sword being wielded by the players. It accomplishes the same goal only in a far more effective and widespread manner. To argue against it logically would be similar to saying that player X doesn't get experience for killing seven orks by pushing a bolder on them because he used the bolder. The implement shouldn’t matter, only the action.
But yeah, it might have been better to burn it all down, but where is the fun in that?!
Perhaps it's because I'm from the south, but fire is always fun - especially in large amounts with grain alcohol. And believe me when I say this, if there is a fire in the south larger than a matchstick there will be alcohol involved.
Posted 14 July 2010 - 12:13 PM
Very hurt Goggles: "I listen at the door."
Hal: " You hear panting and someone saying "It will be ok pups, the fire will be out in a minute.""
Very hurt Goggles: "I open the door."
Hal: "2 huge dogs attack you."
Soon to be dead Goggles: "What dogs?!! AAAAhhh...I'm dead."
Im paraphrasing of course.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users