Lavinia isn't 100% necessary but she will make your life as DM that much easier. If you want to leave the ships where they fell then the PCs need a new patron. One that has ties to Vanthus. One that has a reason to go to the Isle of Dread. Playing the adventure without Lavinia is possible . . . but it will require rewrites.
Lavinia had an aunt in Cauldron which the adventure "TINH" stated that she had sent the Jade Ravens to in order to receive her aid. Her name is Aeberrin Vanderboren from the Shackled City Adventure Path. Aeberrin would most definately be a person that could take over the estate of Lavinia in Sasserine and continue with Lavinia's original goals.
Bob
Yeah, I have to go with "she's only mostly dead." I mean, really, if they can't keep Lavinia alive this early in the game, just forget the whole campaign! That's just - I don't even know what! Seriously, if Lavinia's dead, that's a MAJOR re-write. You might as well go with a different campaign for all the re-write you're looking at.
How does that happen???
I say introduce the estate's functionary, who will take her place as the party's boss for a little while until the PCs become more embroiled in the adventure. Also, use the Jade Ravens- maybe they can spur things on by saying the PCs wanted her dead and the party has to adventure that much harder to clear their name.
...I'd suggest one of two things:
1) she's not quite dead yet. She appeared mostly dead but it turns out that upon closer inspection she's not dead yet.
2) it was a dream. The players wake in a cold sweat feeling a horrible sense of forbearing.
Lavinia isn't 100% necessary but ....
Guy's right. She's not 100% necessary, but she is 99.44% necessary. Egads! If she's not sacred to at least the very beginning of the adventure, what is?? Really, you can do with out most of the NPCs (I've seen some people swapping Rowyn and Diamondback, for example) but there are a few that are integral: Lavinia, Vanthus and the BBEG! Otherwise it will allways have the feel of, "The role of Lavinia is being played by her understudy, her twin cousin Bolivia."
. . . but it will require rewrites.
Give that man the understatement of the year award. Do you all get what we're talking about here? Han and Luke get Laia killed in the Death Star! THAT'S the kind of re-write we're talking about here!!!
Look, do what you want, but I'm saying "She ain't dead!" It's a mistake, a do-over or whatever you have to do, but wake that b**** up!"
Look, do what you want, but I'm saying "She ain't dead!" It's a mistake, a do-over or whatever you have to do, but wake that b**** up!"
I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Without Lavina the whole rest of the campaign starts having a 'whats the point' feel. She is the plot in this AP. I suppose one could keep going forward without her but not easily. Vanthus does the things he does in the AP because of her...without her your probably best writing him out as well. You can still use the rest of the frame work but its kind of like having a set without any supporting actors.
Let's say Lavinia dies in The Bullywug Gambit...
What are your best, most logical, and/or most creative ideas on how to move the campaign forward to Sea Wyvern's Wake?
A lot depends on the PCs' motivations:
1) By the end of tBG they should be 5th level, so they should be able to afford the 5,450 gp to have a 9th level cleric cast raise dead (450 gp for the spell + 5,000 gp in diamonds). Alternately, Lavinia could have made arrangements in advance and the resulting hit to her finances makes her even more reliant on the PCs (assuming they didn't cause her death by carelessness or inaction).
2) The PCs may wish to fulfill "Lavinia's last request" to resupply the colony of Farshore. Most of the rest of the AP can still be run with minor changes.
3) If the PCs are heavily involved with one of the affiliations (Dawn Council, Seekers, and Witchwardens especially), then they are tasked with investigating the Isle of Dread. Most of the "crew encounters" in tSWW can still be used with minor tweaks to make them sailors instead of settlers.
4) Run "War of the Wielded" (Dungeon #149) instead. Option 3) can still be used, but most of the trip can be dispensed with. None of tSWW is really vital to the AP, apart from the bat idol in Tamoachan.
It may be some time (sorry, it's 04:15 in the morning here in the UK) before I can post to supply any thoughts on linking in later adventures without Lavinia. What immediately occurs is: ** spoiler omitted **That's ok. You've contributed some great stuff. I like the motivation for Vanthus; makes him seem more compelling and realistic. Thanks again!
I really think that you should have Lavinia raised, it's the only good way (in my opinion) of getting round that bad roll in BG.
Here are some other ideas that may or may not require a lot of re-plotting. Tell me what you think:
I think there are a lot of plot points you aren’t thinking through. Why is Anver going? If he’s not going, how is the trip being financed? If the Vanderboren estate “has enough money for…” resurrection, the expedition to Farshore, etc, does that mean Vanthus hasn’t been pillaging the family coffers? What is Vanthus doing then, and what is his motivation? Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, your group is going with the “take the body to Farshore for burial” option. Is Lavinia’s corpse still going to run for mayor? (If so, rename the outpost “New Chicago” – ha!) Why the attack on Farshore? Either Vanthus has no reason to be interested in Farshore anymore (he was only going after his sister), or there is no Vanthus, so why is the Crimson Fleet going to waste resources there? Yes, there’s the whole rescue the damsel in distress you have to re-work, but it’s nearly impossible to have a romantic subplot with a “priceless artifact” (Not necessarily a part of the STAP, but another example of the potential you’d lose). I have to be honest, I haven’t read much past the battle of Farshore, but I have to believe the list goes on.
So here’s the counter question that needs to be asked: Is it still the same AP if you have to re-work that much of it and, if not, why bother with the AP at all? The whole idea of an Adventure Path is that all the work is done for you – you don’t have to think. Otherwise, you’d be playing your own creation.
Lavinia lunged free; the module recommends an initiative check; Lavinia failed it; her captor critted her, sending her well below 0 hp; and the heroes failed to get to her in time to save her. I suppose I could have fudged the rolls in her favor but chose not to.
Well, if you are regretting that decision, I think your choice should be obvious. I, for one, almost never roll dice for battles between NPCs. I am not, for example, going to role out each and every combat in the Battle of Farshore that the PCs are not directly involved in. With the obscuring mist, the PCs hand no way to know who went first, who injured whom, etc, so there’s REALLY no reason they should have seen the dice. Incidentally, if you never fudge dice rolls for the sake of the story, you’re not DMing (IMO), you’re just reading a module to your players. (Please, this is an old debate, so don’t let it sidetrack this thread. Start a new one if you really MUST slam me on this point). Further, you didn’t have to even fudge the rolls. “You notice that she had been wearing a medallion, which seems to have crumbled to dust, leaving only a gold chain. ‘Ah!’ says the magic user, ‘a Brooch of Shielding.’” And it absorbed just enough of the damage to keep her alive.
I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Without Lavina the whole rest of the campaign starts having a 'whats the point' feel. She is the plot in this AP. I suppose one could keep going forward without her but not easily. Vanthus does the things he does in the AP because of her...without her your probably best writing him out as well. You can still use the rest of the frame work but its kind of like having a set without any supporting actors.
This is the guy to listen to.
Lavinia lunged free; the module recommends an initiative check; Lavinia failed it; her captor critted her, sending her well below 0 hp; and the heroes failed to get to her in time to save her. I suppose I could have fudged the rolls in her favor but chose not to.
I just reread the paragraph that describes what happens if the PCs fail to bargain. Yes, it is exactly as you say, there should be an initiative roll, etc. But what you are overlooking is what is conspicuous by its ABSENCE from the module – there is no suggestion of what to do if Lavinia is killed! It clearly assumes that she survives and, by implication, should tell you her death should not be an option.
It’s fine to “let the chips fall where they may with Avner, Urol, Amella, Skald, pick any NPC, but Lavinia is a little bit more important than the others. That is why she is meant to be on another ship, separate from the PCs for a large segment – so you can’t get her killed!
I think it's beyond the point of fudging the rolls or eliminating the rolls by now. It's happened, and short of the almighty (and sometimes disbelief-shattering) retcon, the OP can't take it back. Now's not the time for brow-beating him for acting in accordance with the module's tense hostage scene.
Now's the time for helping figure out where to go from here... and it's clear that neither he nor his players want to just stop playing.
Besides, some players get emotionally taken out of their place in story if they know certain challenges have a pre-set success rate. "Might as well be playing a videogame if it has non-interactive cutscenes."
Your milliage may vary, but I have at least one player who partially sets his measure of the DM by how well he or she handles the game when the plot gets derailed.
Heck, remember the lady who's the boss of the Sasserine theives' guild? The adventure pre-supposes the players might turn on Lavinia and work for her instead. So the writers themselves aren't 100 convinced Lavinia /must/ be there. She's just the "best" option.
What about this suggestion:
Lavinia comes back as a ghost and cannot rest as long as Vanthus is still alive, as she instinctively feels that Vanthus should be stopped. If you want to link Lavinia to locations, e.g. Farshore, link her ghost to an item, and have Vanthus hunt the item in order to destroy it (and destroy the ghost).
I think it's beyond the point of fudging the rolls or eliminating the rolls by now. It's happened, and short of the almighty (and sometimes disbelief-shattering) retcon, the OP can't take it back. Now's not the time for brow-beating him for acting in accordance with the module's tense hostage scene.
True, but he asked what we thought of his options. In doing so, I thought it fair to support my views with why I held them and, thus, what I would have done under those circumstances.
By the way, Ironregime, if I have made you feel ‘brow-beaten’ I apologize. That was not my intent.
Besides, some players get emotionally taken out of their place in story if they know certain challenges have a pre-set success rate. "Might as well be playing a videogame if it has non-interactive cutscenes."
Actually, I think you are making MY point for me. If a DM simply follows the module, and the rules, blindly, then it really is no different than playing a computer game. The purpose of a human DM is that he or she thinks things though, considers the “spirit of the law,” and determines what is implied beyond what is written. A computer game doesn’t do that. A computer game is a glorified Twist-a-Plot book. (I warned you about this tangent). I outlined why I felt that the “spirit” of the STAP – what was implied – was that Lavinia aught to survive.
Your milliage may vary, but I have at least one player who partially sets his measure of the DM by how well he or she handles the game when the plot gets derailed.
Yes, everybody’s “mileage does vary,” and since we are trying to respond to Ironregime, it’s really only his “mileage” that counts. He knows his group and whether this applies or not.
If we’re going to share, however, my group is the same way, to a point. In our group, there is also an understanding that, when you are playing a module, you are doing so for a reason and you do “suspend disbelief” a little bit to play that module. If a game derails, it is because of the players’ actions, not the NPCs. Further, if a game derails, there is no expectation that we are playing the module anymore.
Back to the original question: “What are your best, most logical, and/or most creative ideas on how to move the campaign forward to Sea Wyvern's Wake?”
The best, most logical way to move the campaign forward is bring Lavinia back somehow. If you want to get creative, then you’re going off the AP and playing your own homebrew based on the STAP. Either way is valid, but you have to be clear about what your intention is. But that brings us back to the RP vs videogame analogy. If you want to play the STAP, then you play the STAP, and bring it back to the plot when it gets off. If you’re not going to do that, then you’re not playing the STAP anymore. Either way, that’s Ironregime’s choice. However, his very question implied, to me anyway, that he wanted to “get back on track.” If I’m wrong, I’m sure Ironregime will correct me.
Heck, remember the lady who's the boss of the Sasserine theives' guild? The adventure pre-supposes the players might turn on Lavinia and work for her instead. So the writers themselves aren't 100 convinced Lavinia /must/ be there. She's just the "best" option.
Right, but that eventuality IS WRITTEN INTO THE STAP. Again I point out that the ABSENCE of a suggestion of what to do if Lavinia gets dead implies that it ain't supposed to happen.
What about this suggestion:
Lavinia comes back as a ghost and cannot rest as long as Vanthus is still alive, as she instinctively feels that Vanthus should be stopped. If you want to link Lavinia to locations, e.g. Farshore, link her ghost to an item, and have Vanthus hunt the item in order to destroy it (and destroy the ghost).
Now we’re in the spirit of the original question! It gets you back on track, and it’s original!
But Vanthus isn’t trying to destroy the object. He’s trying to steal it. He can have his demon friends transfer Lavinia’s spirit into a demon body – which is totally in keeping with his original plan.
True, but he asked what we thought of his options. In doing so, I thought it fair to support my views with why I held them and, thus, what I would have done under those circumstances.
Sorry, I was perhaps reading a bit more "Way to go, chump, you killed the module." into your posts than I should have.
Personally, my thoughts were to have Lavinia's parents having had a little squirrelled away for a Raise Dead spell for their favored daughter, perhaps in the hands of a trusted kinfolk or servant with word to keep it secret (and thus protected from Vanthus) up until the point where it becomes necessary. Sort of a last present of giving life "from the beyond" from her parents.
Money set aside for a Raise Dead spell can be justified with a bit of secrecy on the part of parents who likely have some reason not to trust their son anymore.
Actually, I think you are making MY point for me. If a DM simply follows the module, and the rules, blindly, then it really is no different than playing a computer game. The purpose of a human DM is that he or she thinks things though, considers the “spirit of the law,” and determines what is implied beyond what is written. A computer game doesn’t do that. A computer game is a glorified Twist-a-Plot book. (I warned you about this tangent). I outlined why I felt that the “spirit” of the STAP – what was implied – was that Lavinia aught to survive.
Okay... you know... sorry, but one thing first. Frankly, I'm not making your point. If I'm making any point, it's a point of being overly defensive about someone's right to run the scene the way he wanted to, up to and including risk of plot derailment for the purposes of an "ICly dangerous" gaming environment. But I admit to being overly defensive when it's probably not needed or warranted, so I'ma shut up about it now.
True, but he asked what we thought of his options. In doing so, I thought it fair to support my views with why I held them and, thus, what I would have done under those circumstances.Sorry, I was perhaps reading a bit more "Way to go, chump, you killed the module." into your posts than I should have.
First, OMG that’s funny. I don’t know why, but I laughed out loud when I read this.
Second, no, totally not my intent. That’s the danger of this non-verbal medium. You can so easily start a flame-war when you’re really on the same side at heart.
If I'm making any point, it's a point of being overly defensive about someone's right to run the scene the way he wanted to, up to and including risk of plot derailment for the purposes of an "ICly dangerous" gaming environment. But I admit to being overly defensive when it's probably not needed or warranted, so I'ma shut up about it now.
No, it’s cool, but, yeah, I don’t think we have any real disagreement here. I (think I) did say it’s his choice – either to go off on his own or to steer things back to the STAP. All I’m saying is that I think the two choices, at least in this instance, are mutually exclusive. Thus, if he wants to continue the STAP, he really needs Lavinia somehow.
Personally, my thoughts were to have Lavinia's parents having had a little squirrelled away for a Raise Dead spell for their favored daughter, perhaps in the hands of a trusted kinfolk or servant with word to keep it secret (and thus protected from Vanthus) up until the point where it becomes necessary. Sort of a last present of giving life "from the beyond" from her parents.
Money set aside for a Raise Dead spell can be justified with a bit of secrecy on the part of parents who likely have some reason not to trust their son anymore.
Now we’re back on the original topic again!
Exactly! Their mom left her diary, which leads Lavinia to Farshore. At this point in TBG, there are all kinds of things that can be “uncovered” that could reflect a contingency plan on the part of the Vanderborens to protect their daughter. As such, why have money put aside for a resurrection? Maybe they already worked out an agreement with a priest to perform a resurrection as a “last line of defense.” In fact, it might all be arranged. Kora (if she survived) or some other servant at this point would go get Father Bopsudiddly: “It is time, Father.” “I had prayed that it wouldn’t come to this…” One time thing: They’d been preparing for a long time, the materials were very expensive, it’s such an ordeal on the priest that he cannot bring himself to perform the ritual again. This satisfies the DM’s desire to not have resurrection be an easy-out anymore, it gets the game back on track, even adds a bit to the drama, plus it reinforces the “protect Lavinia” imperative.
Heck, remember the lady who's the boss of the Sasserine theives' guild? The adventure pre-supposes the players might turn on Lavinia and work for her instead. So the writers themselves aren't 100 convinced Lavinia /must/ be there. She's just the "best" option.
The writers are wrong...
Serously, the Paizo guys do a lot of stuff with the APs and sometimes the APs evolve even while they are still being worked on. The idea of alternate options for how to go forward is a great idea. Its totally cool - the problem is that it was simply overshadowed by the interaction between Vanthus and Lavina. As time went on the authours mention Rowyn ever less often and eventually they simply stopped talking about her at all. On the other hand the interaction between Vanthus and Lavina blossomed and became deeper and more complex. Ultimately this became Lavina and Vanthus' story - even though that was only one possible way for this to turn out in the original vision. Fortunately its a really compelling story to serve as the backdrop for a campaign.
Savage Tide, more then any other AP before or since, is something of a novel with 'main characters' in powerful interactions between the PCs and the various important NPCs.
In any case the milk has already been spilt. The framework still exists the DM can build an AP around that framework and if the DM works at it I'm sure it will be great.
Sensible stuff about internet and words and stuff...
Yeah, I'm going to chalk it up to me not getting enough sleep last night and move on from there. :)
At any rate, I tend to favor the idea of an in-game way to bring her back than to say, 'Oops, it didn't happen.' It lends a greater sense of credence to the idea that the characters are working in a dangerous field and someone could get dead. "Oh crap, maybe guns blazing isn't the best way to approach a hostage situation."
In fact, if ever I do run the STAP, I probably will run it from the perspective that Lavinia could get dead from this encounter, but that there's that contingency to bring her back. Maybe an XP bonus if they get her out of the hostage situation alive, or the like.
One time thing: They’d been preparing for a long time, the materials were very expensive, it’s such an ordeal on the priest that he cannot bring himself to perform the ritual again. This satisfies the DM’s desire to not have resurrection be an easy-out anymore, it gets the game back on track, even adds a bit to the drama, plus it reinforces the “protect Lavinia” imperative.
Yes. The fact that it's a one time second chance, not a safety net is very important to me in terms of establishing consequences and responsibility.
They don't need to know she won't actually be in danger until Vanthus shows up again... by which point, I'm of the humble opinion that the plot has enough momentum to go on without her... or to sweep her along with it even if she's technically died.
The writers are wrong...Serously, the Paizo guys do a lot of stuff with the APs and sometimes the APs evolve even while they are still being worked on. The idea of alternate options for how to go forward is a great idea. Its totally cool - the problem is that it was simply overshadowed by the interaction between Vanthus and Lavina. As time went on the authours mention Rowyn ever less often and eventually they simply stopped talking about her at all. On the other hand the interaction between Vanthus and Lavina blossomed and became deeper and more complex. Ultimately this became Lavina and Vanthus' story - even though that was only one possible way for this to turn out in the original vision. Fortunately its a really compelling story to serve as the backdrop for a campaign.
Savage Tide, more then any other AP before or since, is something of a novel with 'main characters' in powerful interactions between the PCs and the various important NPCs.
In any case the milk has already been spilt. The framework still exists the DM can build an AP around that framework and if the DM works at it I'm sure it will be great.
See? I told you this was the guy to listen to!
"Oh crap, maybe guns blazing isn't the best way to approach a hostage situation."
LOL! Ya think?
You know, I think every DM has seen a situation (and I'm not necessarily saying this is one of them) where the players do something so head-scratchingly ridiculous that you just want to say, “Okay, now do you want to rewind a play that again with your brains engaged?” Maybe the answer is “Yes! Do over!” Maybe the answer is, “No, let’s see where this goes,” but either way you have a great game story to laugh about years later.
Sensible stuff about internet and words and stuff...ROTFLMFAO! I just caught this on the re-read. I don't know who the frack you are, Drakli, but I like you!
"Meg was right, degrading yourself and women and something and all that noise..." Peter, Family Guy
"It could be witches, Some evil witches,Which is ridiculous'Cause witches,They were persecuted Wicca good And love the earth And women power,And I’ll be over here." Xander, Buffy the Musical
I was thinking about this problem last night and you can make it even more compelling if you make Vanthus go after Lavinia's soul. Perhaps his master D wants it, or he wants to "test Vanthus's loyalty" (and see which is stronger, his loyalty to D or his possessive love for Lavinia).
Personally if I ever DM this adventure I'm going to take the dice out of the hands of fate and just say Lavinia goes first. This is a hostage situation but sadly, as written, there's really not many options for the PCs except guns blazing.
IMO, dice rolls should NEVER be able to derail a game like this and ESPECIALLY dice rolls between NPCs (and even more especially NPCs obscured from the PCs view). A few bad rolls can kill a PC, or even result in TPK, but not take out a major plot element. It’s Leia escaping the Death Star, I tell ya!
<other stuff>
Due to conditions specific to my campaign, the encounter with Harliss was unnecessary, so it didn't happen.
<other stuff>
I'm curious about this point. Why precisely did you rule that she was unnecessary in Kraken's Cove?
Harliss is one of the clues which will lead the party to Scuttlecove after Vanthus finally manages to nab Lavinia. The meeting (now ambush) at Red Foam Whaling and the rescue from the Birdcage all concern Harliss. Since you removed her from Kraken's Cove, what/who were you planning to substitute for her in Scuttlecove?
<other stuff>
Due to conditions specific to my campaign, the encounter with Harliss was unnecessary, so it didn't happen.
<other stuff>
I'm curious about this point. Why precisely did you rule that she was unnecessary in Kraken's Cove?
Harliss is one of the clues which will lead the party to Scuttlecove after Vanthus finally manages to nab Lavinia. The meeting (now ambush) at Red Foam Whaling and the rescue from the Birdcage all concern Harliss. Since you removed her from Kraken's Cove, what/who were you planning to substitute for her in Scuttlecove?
Excellent point, and one I overlooked in my earlier post about all the things that the OPer had to re-write later in the game.
It's a tapestry. Pluck one string (or get her killed) and the whole thing unravels.
I say let the woman die. The PCs screwed up and you should let them feel their failure. Plus, you don’t really want to show the players that no matter what they do, things will reset to allow the story to continue.
Truth is, there are bunches of ways to continue the story without Lavinia. There are really only two events that will need any sort of rewriting:
Who Vanthus abducts: By this point in your campaign, there could be a list of people close to the PCs, you need merely pick one and have Vanthus run off with him/her. I like the idea that Vanthus would be very mad at the PCs for allowing his sister to die and could be acting in some sort of “see how it feels” motivation when stealing a PC’s loved one.
In any case, what I’m really trying to discourage is absolving the players/PCs of any consequence of failure. As soon as you say “nevermind, she’s not dead”, your players are going to realize their adventure is predestined and that’s no fun.
I say let the woman die. The PCs screwed up and you should let them feel their failure. Plus, you don’t really want to show the players that no matter what they do, things will reset to allow the story to continue.
Truth is, there are bunches of ways to continue the story without Lavinia. There are really only two events that will need any sort of rewriting:
** spoiler omitted **
In any case, what I’m really trying to discourage is absolving the players/PCs of any consequence of failure. As soon as you say “nevermind, she’s not dead”, your players are going to realize their adventure is predestined and that’s no fun.
I hate to sound harsh, but I think that’s a really narrow view of the STAP and its rather intricate story. If that’s how you see the STAP, then you’re really not getting the full effect.
Actually, I have to reference your spoilers because they’re relevant to my point (Warning).
Okay, why would Avner back the mission with Lavinia out to the picture? Further, why would he go along? The Jade Ravens? Who’s going to pay them when the party is already on the payroll (presumably)? The question isn’t only “who” Vanthus abducts but “why.” His motivation, in your suggestion, is getting pretty “Dr. Evil” and the unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism, and I don’t think the Fleet and Big D. are going to lend him aid for a “see how it feels.” Oh, and Fareshore election? Just drop the whole thing?
But I think what bothers me the most is the attitude of punishing the players. It’s not the DM’s job to make sure that they “feel their failure.” It’s the DM’s job to make sure that everyone has a good time. Sometimes that means a “do over,” and sometimes that means just seeing what happens, but I think you’re coming at this from a really negative place, Fletch, and I don’t think your giving the players, the OPer, or the STAP fair respect.
Troy, I get that you're really in favor of keeping the storyline intact, but I can't agree with your viewpoint that the AP is a fenced-in road.
If you're not willing to have your players' actions impact the story, then all you're doing is narrating the tale to them.
It doesn't take much effort at all to make up a reason for Avner to sponsor the mission ("things are getting too hot for me around here, maybe I'd better visit Uncle What's-his-Name who lords over his own distant colony") or the Jade Ravens ("Our bread-and-butter just croaked, maybe we can still benefit from our long-standing service to the Vanderboren family by supporting their distant colony")
Need someone to run against Marivanchi during the elections? Have the settlers nominate one of your PCs. Don't think the Crimson Fleet would loan Vanthus ships to capture his sister? Make their goal the conquest of the colony that Vanthus tells them is there.
These aren't extensive rewrites.
If you ask me the players had little or no control over the outcome. I fail to see why we need to punish the players for something that was ultimately out of their control.
A valid point except for the idea that they're being punished. Troy used that same word and I can't see a player feeling cheated because the DM is adapting the adventure to his actions. Actually, I'm arguing that you'd be punishing your players by NOT allowing their actions to have consequences.
If PCs try to rescue someone and that someone winds up dead, I believe your campaign will suffer by initiating the "story above all else" clause.
Troy, I get that you're really in favor of keeping the storyline intact, but I can't agree with your viewpoint that the AP is a fenced-in road.
If you're not willing to have your players' actions impact the story, then all you're doing is narrating the tale to them.
No, you’re not getting me at all, and I’ve covered this in other posts above. It’s up to the DM to determine when keeping things on track is appropriate and when it’s appropriate to make it up as he goes along. I’m not saying that player actions shouldn’t have consequences, but in this case, it’s really hard to pin it on the players. It still comes down to the actions of the NPCs and their dice rolls, which the DM has every right to do whatever he wants (including ignoring rolls or not rolling at all). Further, the DM is G-d and can re-write history as he sees fit (as evidenced by the fact the question was even posed.
If you ask me the players had little or no control over the outcome. I fail to see why we need to punish the players for something that was ultimately out of their control.
A valid point except for the idea that they're being punished. Troy used that same word and I can't see a player feeling cheated because the DM is adapting the adventure to his actions. Actually, I'm arguing that you'd be punishing your players by NOT allowing their actions to have consequences.
If PCs try to rescue someone and that someone winds up dead, I believe your campaign will suffer by initiating the "story above all else" clause.
You know what? I’m done.
To be honest Lavinia could be raised from the money that people owe her family, which wasn't an option for the parents since there was essentially no bodies to res but Lavinia's will be "fixable" and you could always say that it was due to a contract or insurance the parents took out on their children as kids since they were adventurers (which makes Vanthus return even funnier)... Think of it as the magical equivelant of the "Gerber life plan"
To be honest Lavinia could be raised from the money that people owe her family, which wasn't an option for the parents since there was essentially no bodies to res but Lavinia's will be "fixable" and you could always say that it was due to a contract or insurance the parents took out on their children as kids since they were adventurers (which makes Vanthus return even funnier)... Think of it as the magical equivelant of the "Gerber life plan"
Holy FRACK! I love this idea. It makes so much sense that I wish Lavinia had died in OUR campaign JUST so we could do this. It fits with the ominous implications raised by an earlier suggestion that maybe the parents knew that something bad might happen. And, yeah, what kind of “insurance” would there be in a magical world? Something just like this! Genius!!
I’m just warning you right now that I’m going to steal this idea for my own future games and I may not give credit. Well, really, I’ll make the attempt, but it’ll probably be like everything else: “Oh, it’s not MY idea. Somebody on the Paizo board suggested it…” Just being honest.
If you ask me the players had little or no control over the outcome. I fail to see why we need to punish the players for something that was ultimately out of their control.A valid point except for the idea that they're being punished. Troy used that same word and I can't see a player feeling cheated because the DM is adapting the adventure to his actions. Actually, I'm arguing that you'd be punishing your players by NOT allowing their actions to have consequences.
If PCs try to rescue someone and that someone winds up dead, I believe your campaign will suffer by initiating the "story above all else" clause.
You're the one that planted the idea of punishment as far as I see. I guess you don't explicitly use the word but you certainly define it:
I say let the woman die. The PCs screwed up and you should let them feel their failure. Plus, you don’t really want to show the players that no matter what they do, things will reset to allow the story to continue.What you seem to fail to understand is that as a player I see the DM killing of Kora, killing off Lavinia, and I was powerless to stop it. I'd feel like I was on the railroad to fail town. Why be heroes if you can't save anyone. These same players are going love the end of Sea Wyvern's Wake as well.
If you're not willing to have your players' actions impact the story, then all you're doing is narrating the tale to them.
Exactly. I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed this adventure at all if I couldn't rescue Lavinia. Heck I might not have even been interested in continuing the adventure if the power to feel like heroes was ripped out of my hands.
Back to the original topic, Lavinia is a serious driving force in the adventure, I do agree that you can continue the adventure without her, but I'd strongly suggest that you find a way to bring her back.
Thanks, Guy. You get what I was trying to say, but maybe I was getting too involved to communicate effectively. Wouldn’t be the first time. “Sensible stuff about internet and words and stuff...” Right Drakli? ;D
You're the one that planted the idea of punishment as far as I see. I guess you don't explicitly use the word but you certainly define it:
I say let the woman die. The PCs screwed up and you should let them feel their failure. Plus, you don’t really want to show the players that no matter what they do, things will reset to allow the story to continue.
Well then for the record let me say that I had not intended to imply that letting Lavinia die due to the PCs' failure to save her is a punishment for the players.
Anyhoo, while I don't necessarily like the idea of Lavinia having an emergency resurrection certificate lying around (while a bit more stylish than "actually she lived", it still takes the results out of the players' hands), I would support any effort my players made to see Lavinia raised.
I’m just warning you right now that I’m going to steal this idea for my own future games and I may not give credit. Well, really, I’ll make the attempt, but it’ll probably be like everything else: “Oh, it’s not MY idea. Somebody on the Paizo board suggested it…” Just being honest.
Feel free, if I posted it here its free game for internets consumption, and as much as an egoist I am, I'd never know someone else liked my idea so it can't really feed my moon sized ego anyway :P
Anyway I have always felt with ressurections being what they are that any sensible person with any kind of enemies who had the bank to do so would have these kinds of things planned for. It even makes sense that they set this up in lieu of payment from a church or powerful noble or regent, since sdventurers end up working for one or the other at one point or another. The fun part is if you did this and then brought vanthus back, the players get the sense that the same thing happened and his reappearance isn't such a crazy "What?!" instead it becomes an "Crud! We forgot about the insurance policy!" moment. But again, I just think it makes sense in a fantasy world where magic and money mix, oh so well...