Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

No GM controlling the great evil is problematic. GMs have to control it in their worlds anyway - they control everything, after all! The only way I see it working is if the great evil's actions are randomized on a broad scale - so a random dice roll might determine when it invades your world, or when it's strengthened or something like that. The alternative is having a Great Over-GM controlling it, but they still shouldn't interfere in the running of the worlds themselves.

I think it was meant that no one controls the whole thing.  Instead, each GM controls one aspect.

[birdy51]

Sort of like... A Legion of Evil? A board of evil executives made up of one representative of each world?

[Avis-Mergulus]

So how do we handle NPCs that travel to other worlds? Does the original GM still play them, or does control of them pass to the GM in the world they travel to? I'm personally in favor of the former.

I am in favor of the latter for continuity and conflict prevention reasons. For example, an invading army from World A enters World B. If that invading army remains in control of GM A, that pits GM A directly against GM B, and in addition to that, they now have to figure out how to deal with rolls and actions on such a scale (as in, does that army take one action per turn? What constitutes an action for it? Does it roll only once to, say, capture a city?). If control of the army is passed to GM B, though, he can make use of it as a plot device/enemy/somesortathing.

Maybe it would be best if single NPCs crossing between worlds stayed under the control of their GMs, and groups of NPCs passed to the host GM.

[~Neri]

I really don't think an overarching evil is a good idea.

[birdy51]

I really don't think an overarching evil is a good idea.

The question then, is what is the measuring stick for progression?

A single big bad does that nicely. You know you're near the end of the game when you can take him on directly, but that's not the only measuring stick that can be used.

[~Neri]

Why not let the single big bad form on his own? Why just start with a unGMable creature that doesn't benefit the plot? Explain the existence of the bigbad. How does he benefit plotlines? Why isn't he just something that details plots? What stops him from derailing? How would he benefit explicitly nonviolent, peaceful worlds?

[Worldmaster27]

Why not allow a PC/group of PCs to become the Big Bad, either by being designated/making one or taking out a lesser Big Bad during the start of the whole thing. You might get much more difficultly and possibly much more rewarding play out of something that isn't controlled by the same guy who controls the world everything. There is the possibility of abuse by players and the derailing of plots, but you could incorporate that into the play. Another difficulty is that the BBPC will be able to see what the players are doing/planning unless they keep it to PMs, which raises complexity.

I also had an idea of, if we decide on using a hub world/plane/whatever, that because of whatever prevents combat from taking place (paralysis or what have you), this hub world becomes a giant trade 'port' for all kinds of exotic goods and stuff from each world.

Another idea would be, if we want to really keep the worlds separate with minimal muckery in between them, there could be a special 'force' or trait that only allows the PCs and maybe certain NPCs to use these portals (and access the hub, if there is one).

[~Neri]

If we do a hub, I have a race that would colonize it within weeks from discovery, so they could handle the starting NPC market in it.

A BBPC sounds interesting, but they would need to coordinate with GM's to avoid derailment.

I don't like the idea of travel being restricted to specific people.

[WillowLuman]

I don't even think we need an overarching plot. Just a bunch of games/worlds with the option to visit/invade one another. If any sort of grand multi-dimensional conspiracy/conflict emerges, let it emerge naturally from the interaction of the worlds. Any given game has its own plot, but there's no grand meta-plot that they all need to fall in line to, except when they intersect with each other.

[Avis-Mergulus]

I don't even think we need an overarching plot. Just a bunch of games/worlds with the option to visit/invade one another. If any sort of grand multi-dimensional conspiracy/conflict emerges, let it emerge naturally from the interaction of the worlds. Any given game has its own plot, but there's no grand meta-plot that they all need to fall in line to, except when they intersect with each other.

^listen to the man.

I must really question the need for a hub. You see, somebody will have to GM it, and the opportunity for creativity in such a place is basically nil (shenanigans and that's it. Like the on-ship thread for ER for the first 7 or so missions). Plus the whole paralysis thing seems kinda contrived and implies the presense of some meta-universal force that is taking an active interest in the players' well-being. And we have to explain that somehow.

The less meta-stuff we have to explain, the better.

[~Neri]

We could say the hub doesn't like to have to clean up debris and blood. Corpses are an arse to get rid of. Specially if you have no arms.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

You know, now that I've thought over the direct world to world system, it sounds more interesting than a hub.  A would could have a hub if they've been using the system for a long enough time to decipher it and construct one as a checkpoint into the world.

[Avis-Mergulus]

We could say the hub doesn't like to have to clean up debris and blood. Corpses are an arse to get rid of. Specially if you have no arms.

Implies the hub is either sentient by itself or inhabited by a powerful sentient entity. And that has to be explained away, and since it concerns everybody, it has to be explained away by commitee. And that's not what is generally considered to be fun in certain circles.

[~Neri]

True. Probs should do direct worldtoworld stuff.

[nitpick]Although technically you mean sapient, not sentient.[/nitpick]

[Avis-Mergulus]

[nitpick]Although technically you mean sapient, not sentient.[/nitpick]

[excuse]English is not my first language.[/excuse].
What's the difference, though, for future reference?