Probably for the best. I will fill you in on the situation, and you can decide how to proceed.
Congratulations on your victory, Master Adreccam. Dispatching Swordlord Dunkrint for his heinous acts committed against the safety and well-being of Brevoy is a fine, fine accomplishment. You bring honor to the Surtova name the servant sneers, enjoying the confused look on your face. Much has happened since the treasonous meeting you witnessed yesterday afternoon. I'm sure you were only seeking the proper means of informing your superiors when others more loyal to the family mustered the courage to do so. They will be rewarded in their own way and time, so for now, King Noleski has deigned to award you an honor long denied the Surtovan line. This afternoon, you will be made a Swordlord of Restov for your courage and dedication, and you will be placed in charge of the rebellious forces others sought to unleash upon the poor and helpless of the Stolen Lands. Perhaps you and those more loyal to the Throne can prevent any more disruptions of our Regent's plans.
The carriage stops at a more exclusive inn. You are ushered inside where you find a small cadre of staff present that quickly set about stripping you and preparring you, head to toe, front to back, for the ceremony planned for the afternoon. Once complete, you are dressed and armored, looking more spit and polish than you can long remember. It seems whether you are happy about it or not, you are being returned to the Surtova family, at least in the public eye. It is obvious from the looks and attitudes of the staff you will never be a true Surtova.
Should I be posting my response in the IC thread? I'll keep it here for now, since you broached this turn of events in OOC.
He never liked Waldorf, the Surtova servant who spoke to him in the carriage. He had been attached to his father's estate, and Adreccam had heard that he had since left to serve at the behest of the King-Regent himself. A sly, self-important man was Waldorf, always looking down his nose with disdain at young Adreccam.
Now, ten years later, the man was telling him that he was to be made a Swordlord, of all things! This was not exactly the path to glory he had envisioned when he fantasized about joining the Order. He was to be a mole for his kinsman, apparently. But what was the King's plan? What treason was hatched at the meeting? Why was Dunkrint killed, and why was House Surtova claiming Adreccam did it?
The young warrior could feel the cold rage start to churn in his bowels. As he is being dressed and cleaned in preparation for his "promotion", he resolved to follow this through to the end. Let them prop me up as a puppet. I will twist this newfound power against them, and uncover my family's true plans. I need only bide my time. Adreccam keeps his mouth shut and maintains his bewildered look as he is primped and preened over.
Should I be posting my response in the IC thread? I'll keep it here for now, since you broached this turn of events in OOC.
** spoiler omitted **
You can post it in the other thread, or I can if you prefer, as part of what the group finds as they arrive at the warehouse.
You can post it in the other thread, or I can if you prefer, as part of what the group finds as they arrive at the warehouse.Should I be posting my response in the IC thread? I'll keep it here for now, since you broached this turn of events in OOC.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, go ahead and incorporate how I acted in your post. It'll probably flow better in the IC. Thanks!
I get why rostlanders call the King a Regent, but why is the Castellan to the King calling him a Regent? Noleski is the King of Brevoy. He's not holding the throne for anyone. Am I missing something?
I get why rostlanders call the King a Regent, but why is the Castellan to the King calling him a Regent? Noleski is the King of Brevoy. He's not holding the throne for anyone. Am I missing something?
Actually, no he is not the true king. He is the regent, closest tie to the throne but not actually of House Rogarvia, the legitimate heirs of Choral and rightful rulers of Brevoy. The Surtovan line were rulers of Issia only, and like Rostland fell prey to the ambitions of Choral the Conqueror. The only real difference is the Surtovans willing whored out their daughters to maintain power quicker and more readily than others.
When in areas where it is of political necessessity, retaining the title of King-Regent says eat it he's king without causing immediate offense.
I'm aware of the background, but according to the setting, *only* the Orlovsky's claim he's a regent and no one else anywhere makes a distinction. In the end, he's the King, whether rightful or not. This is apparently different in Kingmaker?
Actually I have been using the Kingmaker Wiki, Pathfinder wikia, and Pathfinder wiki to expand on the AP somewhat. Also, the "official" info is that some houses, like Orlovsky, see him as a regent. Though Orlovsky is the only house directly mentioned, it is not the only house at odds with Surtova, as should be expected.
Despite that, I find it doubtful that peoples at frequent conflict with one another, forced to live 'peaceably' under threat of violence, suddenly facing the chance of self-rule again, would bend knee to old enemies, especially enemies who have been politically manipulative, conniving schemers.
Basically, House Surtova is House Soprano, taking the chance to rule.
If you don't like the storyline, please feel free to offer suggestions for change. This group expressed interest in a more political game, a game of kings, which this will become more of in time.
I'm a tad bit confused as to the current scene. Is our group being dismissed as the other groups are being ushered into the warehouse or is the public being dismissed as we are ushered into the warehouse?
If we're being dismissed it definitely changes things...particularly my odds of encouraging people to cut and run =P
I'm not entirely following either. But I believe the public is being dismissed and we are being ushered into the warehouse.
The part I'm a bit confused on is Adreccam becoming a swordlord. I would have thought after his poor performance at the lord's manor he would have to wait quite a while. Though I believe he is just being set up as a pansy/fall guy.
I was also a bit confused as to why the other groups were slaughtered in public. One of many reasons why Flynn is having inner conflicts about loyalty to his family, Surtova. Of course, this helps develop how my character will react to future events as well. Got quite the tale to write to cousin. Speaking of which, DM Kalizar, any chance on a name for cousin?
Despite that, I find it doubtful that peoples at frequent conflict with one another, forced to live 'peaceably' under threat of violence, suddenly facing the chance of self-rule again, would bend knee to old enemies, especially enemies who have been politically manipulative, conniving schemers.Basically, House Surtova is House Soprano, taking the chance to rule.
I'm fine with this being true in your game, but I'll note that this isn't true in the setting. Brevoy is unstable, but the only people speaking out against the King are the Orlovsky's and they aren't exactly open about it. Calling someone a regent is more of a political snub than anything else. I also get that you personally disapprove of Noleski's methods, but the setting material has him as not being evil. He may be manipulative and more politician than hero, and he may not be loved, but he's not hated.
With that said, if it's not true in your game, that's fine. But we'll need to know about the changes from the setting that our characters would know about.
And yeah, I've been made aware that this is vastly different from the actual adventure path. I have a friend running the adventure path that looked in on the thread and mentioned it. Otherwise he's been pretty careful about not spoiling anything for me.
As for the storyline, I'm not sure starting with open conflict with Brevoy was the best way to go for a political game. My impression was that we start as having loose ties to the country that evolves into tension but not outright conflict. I would have preferred that, but it's a little too late for that to be possible. I actually would have liked a game where we explore the stolen lands, then settle it, then grow into a country, with the usual problems of tension with neighbors and growing into a political game. Which was my impression of how the adventure path works. If we're to go into a full blown political game from the start perhaps it's best that we *not* run the adventure path itself and leave it unspoiled for a future run through? It's easily the most popular adventure path for a reason and I'd not want to only use it as background for another game.
So tell me how you want the game run. Lay out the ground rules for me.
I'm not entirely following either. But I believe the public is being dismissed and we are being ushered into the warehouse.
- CORRECT
The part I'm a bit confused on is Adreccam becoming a swordlord. I would have thought after his poor performance at the lord's manor he would have to wait quite a while. Though I believe he is just being set up as a pansy/fall guy.
- AGAIN CORRECT
I was also a bit confused as to why the other groups were slaughtered in public. One of many reasons why Flynn is having inner conflicts about loyalty to his family, Surtova. Of course, this helps develop how my character will react to future events as well. Got quite the tale to write to cousin. Speaking of which, DM Kalizar, any chance on a name for cousin?
- FEEL FREE TO CHOOSE A NAME YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT NOLESKI OR HIS SISTER, THE QUEEN.
Hope that the Caps lock was stuck. Didn't mean to sound like I wasn't following. I am just taking a little longer to catch on.
So tell me how you want the game run. Lay out the ground rules for me.
From my end at least I'm good with just sticking to the adventure path. I'm okay with tweaks to fit the group's personality and such, but I'm 100% okay with just heading through the thing as it is presented. I can't say I know a massive amount about it, but I think we all are good to go with the rough and tumble, tame the wilds, make a kingdom presentation.
Hope that the Caps lock was stuck. Didn't mean to sound like I wasn't following. I am just taking a little longer to catch on.
Sorry about the caps lock. Yep stuck capping QUOTE and didn't take it off.
All done so far is tweaks and flavor, nothing really more than that. As I'm sure you have read in the AP, neither Kahn nor Dunkrint existed in the AP. They were created as story devices, then dispossed of when necessary. Your group took an overly negative turn immediately, so I removed them. I sense this will continue no matter how I run the AP, but I don't mind at all. Keeps me on my toes in running each group differently.
Once out of Restov, the Brevic influence, other than political interactions which take place later in the AP, are minimal. I will use them as part of the kingdom event rolls, which again are mostly flavor and tweaks. Only your own desires to maintain connections with Brevoy will keep the Regency involved.
And yes, I am maintaining the Regency as currently structured, as it makes it easier to lessen Noleksi's claim on your holdings, being vassals of allied houses and/or family members, if he himself does not have clear title to his own kingdom.
Beyond that, let me know how you want to see this run. The story is you are hired to explore the Greenbelt and put down the Stag Lord. Everything else is sandbox, for players and DM alike.
All done so far is tweaks and flavor, nothing really more than that. As I'm sure you have read in the AP, neither Kahn nor Dunkrint existed in the AP. They were created as story devices, then dispossed of when necessary. Your group took an overly negative turn immediately, so I removed them. I sense this will continue no matter how I run the AP, but I don't mind at all. Keeps me on my toes in running each group differently.
Seth (my friend) mentioned that Dunkrint wasn't in the AP, though I wasn't aware that Kahn wasn't either. In either case, adding NPCs is fine by me. My impression is that this will be even more necessary as the game goes on, so seeding some now makes sense. I'll note that we only got "negative" because of how we were treated. And I'll also note that every character in this group seems intent on helping the old guy at the fort despite how they were treated. I realize that the NPCs feel that we're "mercenaries", but that seems (and to the other players, please correct me if I'm wrong) to be an inaccurate assessment of this party.
Once out of Restov, the Brevic influence, other than political interactions which take place later in the AP, are minimal. I will use them as part of the kingdom event rolls, which again are mostly flavor and tweaks. Only your own desires to maintain connections with Brevoy will keep the Regency involved.And yes, I am maintaining the Regency as currently structured, as it makes it easier to lessen Noleksi's claim on your holdings, being vassals of allied houses and/or family members, if he himself does not have clear title to his own kingdom.
Beyond that, let me know how you want to see this run. The story is you are hired to explore the Greenbelt and put down the Stag Lord. Everything else is sandbox, for players and DM alike.
This seems fine by me. I'm aware that most of how we explore the game is sandbox, but I had the impression that there's an overall story involved with the Kingmaker books. My concern was only that open and early conflict with Brevoy seems to be at odds with the adventure path (though I admit that this is second hand information along with what I read in the player's guide, so I might be misinformed) and could lead to issues with the story later on.
And I'm fine with the political structure of Brevoy as written by you. I'm hoping that Noleski isn't actually as evil as this current event makes him (or his rule) appear to be as that makes the political situation far less complicated than it could be, but even if that's true, I'm happy with however you end up running it.
The AP posted Noleski as absolutely neutral, but that to me does not fit any ruler, certainly not an effective one. I have made him more neutral evil, to explain why, should the party complete the AP, he would invade your kingdom, seeing it weakened by the events leading through the latter installments of the AP. Certainly his advisors are worse than him, but then most politicians surround themselves with others that do the dirty work.
The reasons for the later conflict story is it's one of the three main alternatives presented by Paizo to continue the AP beyond the published materials. It seemed the more plausible of the scenarios offered, and leaves this a kingdom game rather than a high level dungeon romp.
I change up the AP, and will likely continue to do so, as I have found many players, no matter how well meaning, cannot easily avoid being given "ooc" knowledge about the AP. Players gossip, players brag, players overhear things they don't intend to hear. The meat and potatoes will stay the same, but I will change out sugar for stevia, parsley for oregano, rosemary for pepper from time to time. Just to keep it fresh and to keep players on their toes.
"Mercenary" came about to sour the party towards Brevoy and the nobility to some extent. I want the players to become their own people, not simple scions of some other person's goals and desires.
The AP posted Noleski as absolutely neutral, but that to me does not fit any ruler, certainly not an effective one. I have made him more neutral evil, to explain why, should the party complete the AP, he would invade your kingdom, seeing it weakened by the events leading through the latter installments of the AP. Certainly his advisors are worse than him, but then most politicians surround themselves with others that do the dirty work.
The reasons for the later conflict story is it's one of the three main alternatives presented by Paizo to continue the AP beyond the published materials. It seemed the more plausible of the scenarios offered, and leaves this a kingdom game rather than a high level dungeon romp.
I change up the AP, and will likely continue to do so, as I have found many players, no matter how well meaning, cannot easily avoid being given "ooc" knowledge about the AP. Players gossip, players brag, players overhear things they don't intend to hear. The meat and potatoes will stay the same, but I will change out sugar for stevia, parsley for oregano, rosemary for pepper from time to time. Just to keep it fresh and to keep players on their toes.
"Mercenary" came about to sour the party towards Brevoy and the nobility to some extent. I want the players to become their own people, not simple scions of some other person's goals and desires.
I believe the reason he's neutral (at least from the setting books, and not from the AP perspective) is that he makes for a far more compelling and complicated opponent. As neutral evil, it's clear that he should be removed from power. There's no question about it and it's just a matter of when. But from the rest of the setting it's not clear that Noleski is a bad ruler, he's just not a particularly heroic ruler. He's manipulative, but that's not evil. I expect that any ruler of Brevoy would be cautious about another kingdom actually succeeding in the stolen lands, even if they were good. After all, this new kingdom might not be made up of good people, or might wish to expand.
In fact, as it currently stands, once these characters get enough power they're guaranteed to try to remove Noleski. And it's the right thing to do, without question. The setting as written has well-intentioned people opposing him, but doing so for rather selfish reasons (they're okay with instability in the country because they simply dislike Noleski or his house). If they went along, the country would be better off. But they'd prefer honor, or tradition, or simply can't get along with Surtovas, which weakens the country as a whole and opens them up to attack from other countries. If the Surtovas actually are just evil, then these people are simply right. If he's neutral then the question becomes whether the characters think that removing him will be better for Brevoy in the long run, and whether it's the right thing to do. They might even get forced into it by Noleski himself, who may (with good reason) be suspicious of the character's kingdom and attack first. But in this case, he'd be at least partially justified. The character's kingdom *is* a threat even if their intentions are good.
In my opinion, neutral rulers are easily the most effective rulers. They aren't selfish or blind to the necessities of politics. They do things for the good of the country, without regard to what people would consider honorable (unless openly being dishonorable would be bad for the country). They don't just try to expand their power for no reason, but attempt to solidify their power. Sometimes this hurts good people, but so be it. The good of the many and all that. I'm sure many good characters would view their actions as evil, which could lead to conflicts, but the actions aren't actually evil. They're practical. Which is a fundamental difference in a D&D game.
And on the last note, I don't think you have anything to worry about. There is no hope of any of these characters (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) thinking highly of Brevoy or the nobles therein. There really didn't seem to be much hope of that before the game started, but that intro pretty much made anything like that impossible.
OOC
I believe the reason he's neutral...
Perhaps this is the point where we should simply agree to disagree. I can adjust the events thus far however the group desires. I see this group in one manner, one that is not shared. No worries.
Tell me how each of you wishes to proceed, I will adjust accordingly, and we can continue. Please voice your desires, all of you, how do you wish to progress. I will apologize for the poor set-up and development thus far. Let's get things back on a desired track so this can move forward.
I would like to head towards helping this Oleg fellow. I do not see us in any position to do anything at this moment here in Restov. Perhaps in the future we will be better equipped and learned to take on Brevoy.
Actually, I was referring more to how you want Brevoy, the family houses, etc., set up in the game, and how you want them to treat you and your group in the game.
Actually, I was referring more to how you want Brevoy, the family houses, etc., set up in the game, and how you want them to treat you and your group in the game.
I would say that they should probably treat us with suspicion. Especially considering the true last names of those in the party. And the fact that we are working together to establish our own kingdom. Maybe not open hostility right away, but it may come to that at the end.
Actually, I was referring more to how you want Brevoy, the family houses, etc., set up in the game, and how you want them to treat you and your group in the game.
Well, here's the bottom line. You've changed the story from a gradual tension building between Brevoy and the fledgling kingdom over the course of however many books the path is to the reason why we're starting the country being to overthrow a seemingly chaotic evil despot with access to powerful magic. Now, perhaps I'm being misinformed about the extent of the tension between Brevoy and the characters at the start of the path, or the importance of this to the story in the long run. (Admittedly, I've asked my friend not to spoil things so he's been very vague on the issue). But it seems to me that this is a very large change to the story and one that changes a very interesting aspect of the story to a very clear cut issue with an obvious correct answer.
So, in the end, my concern is that this adventure path is popular because the story is quite good. I've gotten the impression that we've taken a rather drastic turn from that story. This concerns me as I'd really liked to have experienced it. But, if in your opinion, this isn't a drastic change, then I'm fine with that.
Actually, Kingmaker is IMO popular because it is an insular sandbox and has little to do with the outside world, save for two particular antagonists that are themselves fairly insular to the storyline. It is this room to grow, impact, and react to the world that has made it somewhat fun for many.
Brevoy is a fart in the wind after the second installment, unless groups wish to continue beyond the final chapter, and actually deal with the rest of Golarion.
If all you want is the candy, I can hand it out and never describe whether its a creepy old guy or loving grandmother giving it out. Book only is fine by me.
PS - IMO the story arc actually sucks. For that I lay the blame squarely with Johnny Depp and Tim Burton.
Actually, Kingmaker is IMO popular because it is an insular sandbox and has little to do with the outside world, save for two particular antagonists that are themselves fairly insular to the storyline. It is this room to grow, impact, and react to the world that has made it somewhat fun for many.
Brevoy is a fart in the wind after the second installment, unless groups wish to continue beyond the final chapter, and actually deal with the rest of Golarion.
If all you want is the candy, I can hand it out and never describe whether its a creepy old guy or loving grandmother giving it out. Book only is fine by me.
PS - IMO the story arc actually sucks. For that I lay the blame squarely with Johnny Depp and Tim Burton.
Apparently I've been misinformed. I was certainly attracted to the module because of the story and the sandbox nature of exploring that story. I was told that the tension between Brevoy and the fledgling kingdom sets the tone of just about the entire game. The gradual increase in tension between a kingdom that used to sponsor the characters and which is now somewhat threatened by the successful kingdom. The fact that they still need these kingdoms being one of, though not the only, reason that Brevoy tolerates the kingdom long enough for it not to matter. That certainly seems to make for a much different tone than the game we're currently playing. In which we're literally creating a kingdom not to make a name for ourselves (like the player's guide suggested we were going to do) but to specifically remove a person from a throne for the betterment of another kingdom.
I'm unclear what the candy issue is. Would I prefer that we get the story meant to be told and the tone of that story? Yes. But the game is still a sandbox, and there are things that need to be filled in that the book doesn't cover. The issue is that the book (so I'm told, and again, I could be misinformed) *does* specifically cover the relationship between Brevoy and the characters. And again, I could be getting the wrong impression about how important this is, but it seems to me that changing the reason why we're exploring and settling the stolen lands entirely does actually change the tone of the game. And, I assume, in a pretty important way.
When we started I thought the focus of the game was to make a kingdom from lawlessness and wilderness for the good of the people living there who felt abandoned by their homeland and now it feels that the purpose of making a kingdom will be for the sole purpose of conflicting with Brevoy and most likely plotting to overthrow the current regime there. Of course this is just the feeling that I am getting from how the storyline is progressing now compared to what little I know of the path.
The same character might not work as well in both of those scenarios, so I am a bit concerned about the viability of my character.
Rostland and Issia are at odds with one another throughout only two chapters of the AP in which they play a role. Their tensions escalate, potentially into war. That you would be friendlier with the southern forces was an assumption I made as the PC's, except for Flynn, seemed unlikely to side with the Issian forces. Medvyed is aligned more with Orlovsky than Surtova, with lands closer to Restov than Port Ice. I apologize for the assumptions.
The Stolen Lands were not "abandoned" by Brevoy, the lands have never been successfully inhabited and occupied for long, even by the elves in ages past. Oleg's fort is the closest Brevoy came to the area, as set up in the AP. That Raktin set his background up his way was fine with me, individual choices and a chance to role-play are why I chose to set up a PbP.
Restov and Brevoy sever connections with your kingdom at the end of the second part of the AP. Completely. They do not make a return appearance until, as I mentioned, unless around character level 17, if desired, your group wants to continue high level play.
You do face other nations, other factions, other threats, the majority of which, as I said, have no connection to Brevoy. The overall story is not about your kingdom facing Brevoy, whether as friends or enemies, but your characters facing the First World and its plans for the Stolen Lands. That your kingdom bears the brunt of this is the sandbox of the AP.
I did not feel it necessary to share this from the outset, nor how I chose to change the game set up to allow for other PC activities later on, to fix weak spots in the story. For me it spoils the whole feel of the game. But since I feel I am under a full disclosure order, there you have it.
How do you, the players, want to proceed?
You do face other nations, other factions, other threats, the majority of which, as I said, have no connection to Brevoy. The overall story is not about your kingdom facing Brevoy, whether as friends or enemies, but your characters facing the First World and its plans for the Stolen Lands. That your kingdom bears the brunt of this is the sandbox of the AP.I did not feel it necessary to share this from the outset, nor how I chose to change the game set up to allow for other PC activities later on, to fix weak spots in the story. For me it spoils the whole feel of the game. But since I feel I am under a full disclosure order, there you have it.
How do you, the players, want to proceed?
I'm not sure anyone's asking for full disclosure. I'm just trying to point out that the consequences of this particular intro was to change the "big bad" of the adventure path (which I understand isn't apparent until much , much further into the path but I actually liked that) to King Noleski. As of right now, the point of the game seems to be to overthrow the obviously evil king of a land that our characters had only small ties to before being thrust directly into the politics of. This is a drastic change, and one that, at least for me, changes the tone of the game.
As to Raktin's background, it's directly from the trait he chose. The campaign traits give reasons for the characters to go into the stolen lands and to have connections, but not strong ties to Brevoy. The player's guide gave us instructions to make characters like that. But this intro not only makes us *more* tied to Brevoy, but makes overthrowing Noleski our end goal. Which isn't really what I signed on for (in or out of character).
I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, but I'd be happy to hear ideas from the other players.
Yes, let's hear from you, the players. The storyline I was weaving doesn't feel worth it anymore.
The posts which would have come later, about finding documents amongst the belongings of the bandits indicating that someone in the Surtovan household had been funding the bandits and using them to cause trouble with Restov I suppose would have changed nothing.
Then later finding evidence amongst other "story villians" scattered about the exploration zone, indicating the Castellan harbored a deep-seated hatred of Rostland, and sought to implicate Restov in funding raids against other Brevic holdings, your fledgling nation for example, would have meant nothing. Surely it would not have possibly proven to the Regent that Rostland should not be invaded and subjugated as the Castellan had long proposed and championed.
Further, I suppose the party handing this info, and other bits seeded across the first two APs, to trusted Surtovan sources would not win over the unsuspecting Regent, who might have realized he could not trust his aide, removed him from office, then sought peace with his neighbors. The fledging nation could not have helped broker a peace, balanced the rhetoric, restored peace to their former homeland, and been awarded full autonomy for their efforts. No, I guess Noleski would have still been the bad guy, Flynn's cousin would not have said over and over your group had it all wrong, and the party would have still been forced to wage war to destroy him.
This is why AP info is a dangerous thing to have. Too many preconceived notions that spoil the story. Especially a sandbox story with only a framework and a few set pieces to dot the landscape. Your party had a diplomat, a spy, a trickster witch, and a man loyal to the true spirit of Brevoy. It could have been a good campaign, once the "truth" of it all had been realized. Plus, it would not have stopped what came later, in fact it would have made the events to come later all the more special as you fought to save what you had already sacrificed so much to obtain.
As to the Pioneer trait, it does not state Brevoy abandoned holdings in the Stolen Lands, only that his family might claim holdings generations lost out there. His family grudge against Brevoy for a long perceived slight was a fine addition to the roleplaying stage, and one that would have served good foil against some of the other party member's actions, it could even have served well in exposing the Castellan's true objectives.
Same is true of Adreccam wanting to bring something positive to the Surtova name, a name too long held as scheming and less than honorable.
Of course, Flynn and his letters home would have served well showing that something was amiss, that clearly you had been lied to about life at the Royal Court, and the doings there; a subject of which none of your backgrounds would have led you close to observing first hand.
Personally, and I have no idea how other people feel, I'm just content to get us back "on track" with exploring/fighting in the Stolen Lands. I think, at least so far, that the king seems very evil and unlawful. So, it seems, that the PC's attention has turned towards defeating the evil king. I'm willing to shake my fist and say "grrr" to the king and move to help Oleg and go back to exploring the Stolen Lands. I think we would need a good reason to get back on track with the primary goal of kingdom making or whatever else the initial goal is (rather than focusing on the king), but I'm at least willing to hand wave some of it to make things work as needed for the AP.
In character, kingdom making was NEVER the goal, shouldn't even have been an inclination, and that's one of the major problems, IC knowledge vs OOC expectations.
From the posts in the IC thread, I did not take it everyone thought taking on the King was an immediate goal, but it was a strong background thought and motivation. The questions of WTF, hey, that's not how I thought the family ran things, murder and assassination can't be right; those questions were expressing the confusion that would have lead to the additional investigating alongside the bandit hunting and exploration, which were the primary goals, and would have informed the group that something was wrong about everything going on back home. As is, all of that may well be a moot point.
Some people like to read the story page by page, some folks skip around, others rush right to the end. I'm not sure yet how this group will settle out on that scale. I think this particular PbP can be salvaged, just not sure if it will feel it's worth the effort.
I would like to continue, disappointed in the Surtova actions in Restov, and confused as it conflicts with inner feelings/thoughts. But I would like to help out this Oleg fellow. That is what we were going to be hired to do. And I wish to complete the task.
Please don't tell us anymore of your subplots and ideas. I feel that if you continue to do so, we will just find out everything you have planned and we will become bored with it. I believe that you could have continued on, but now that we know your plans, it makes it very difficult to throw those in without us using OOC knowledge.
I hope that this is still salvageable, but if not, please let me know. It took me 6 months to get into a Kingmaker PbP. Would be very disheartening to end it already and have to begin looking anew.
I'm basically in agreement with Flynn. When I'm a player, I'm a big fan of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". You're the GM. It's your world. If you want to modify the basic power structure of Brevoy, go for it. Heck, if you want to set Kingmaker in Cheliax instead of Brevoy, I say go for it. If Kalizar wants the King to be Neutral Evil, then he's Neutral Evil. Period. Fact. End of discussion. The GM does not need to explain this decision, and (I believe) shouldn't, as it breaks verisimilitude. Adjust your PC's behavior and outlook accordingly. I purposefully have avoided any threads about Kingmaker, and have only read the Player's Guide. I heard the AP was good, and wanted in. From there, it's the GM's call.
I think the game has been super cool so far, and until this recent hubbub about canon and game expectations, I never would have guessed that Kalizar was changing things. And why would anyone care if he did, anyway? If I wanted to play a game where I knew the outcome beforehand, I certainly wouldn't be playing an RPG, that's for sure. It's the unexpected twists and turns that makes things exciting.
All in all, my vote is to help Oleg and at the same time keep an eye on the Surtovas.
I still have alternatives to the plot outline I illustrated up thread. I can salvage the feeling something dark is growing within Surtova, tweak a few of the added hooks that will not change the overall published arc, and maintain most of what has occurred already. The only thing that would need changing at this time, from what has already occurred, is the other parties would have been arrested without fatality. They would need be placed under house arrest for a few days, before being allowed to resume their positions and you can all begin the journey to the Stolen Lands.
I'm a little unclear how any of that would have made the situation better. In the end, the main focus (the long term focus of the characters) has been changed to the overthrow of Noleski. The fact that we wouldn't have done it because it wasn't actually his fault doesn't change that.
As to GM fiat with changing the story, I disagree. I'm fine with changing certain parts of the story. But I agreed to play Kingmaker, not Kingmaker set in Cheliax. Noleski being evil is a big deal. Not just because of the change, but because it shows a lack of interest in the setting that we all shared. The players need to understand the setting along with the GM. If you change things in that setting without telling the players about the things that *at least* their characters would know, it leads to breakdowns like this. The fact is that the player's guide tells us what to expect and how to make characters based on that expectation. I made a character that would explore the stolen lands for the love of exploration and the hope to make a name for himself. I didn't make a character for another game (which this has become).
As to kingdom building not being an IC goal, no one said it was. But it *should* be a player goal. Because players should be playing characters that will be fun when kingdom building happens as that *is* the focus of this adventure path. There's a reason that the player's guide goes to great lengths to tell the players to discuss that part of the game. You may think that it destroy "immersion" but the fact is that conflicts *will* arise between players if you get to that section of the game and they're not all on the same page. Character conflicts are fine, player conflicts are not.
And finally, I get that you dislike Noleski. But this is actually a serious problem. The character is intended to be morally ambiguous (at least he is elsewhere and I'm told he also is in the adventure path), and as a GM you're job is to at least attempt to see both sides. If you can't then you shouldn't be running that story. Changing the story because you can't, and not understanding that it has much greater consequences, is the thing I'm having a hard time accepting.
I didn't need to know all the details of what you wanted to change. But given that they do actually change the game from the one I wanted to play to an alternate game, I'm glad I know.
I can't speak for the others, but I certainly suffered no breakdown. I was perfectly content to keep trucking along. When I read the post about the slaughter, I kind of went "Huh, interesting," then continued on with my day. That was the sum total of my reaction to this apparently devastating breach of expectations. Read, react, adjust, and above all, play.
So can we just agree to disagree and get this show on the road? Pretty please?
I agree with Adreccam.
Flynn saw this all happen, listened to what was said, and basically his inner conflict was pushed in a direction. Let us continue.
I have no problem continuing the PbP. I run two others for Kingmaker, each is different, and each consists of entirely different player concepts.
I understand Viktor has some misconceptions and differences, and I appreciate he is coming at this from his personal viewpoint; I accept that. If he ultimately does not wish to continue, I accept that as well. I am sorry if he feels that way. I do not wish to argue against his positions, and risk damaging our friendship further. Hopefully, I am wrong.
I assure you Viktor your ooc knowledge is faulty regarding the AP, and on how the game was to, and will, progress. Noleski is no more relevant to the storyline than Dunkrint was. It was the swordlords that hired the groups, paid the groups, financed the groups, then cut off ties with the groups as Brevoy inched closer towards civil war, as written in the AP. Noleski was merely a name scribbled at the bottom of a piece of player hand out fluff. I changed that to give the players a chance to role-play to their strengths. (FTR, I don't hate Noleski, he doesn't exist. I felt a king that seized the throne in crisis, uses bards to spy and lie on friends/foes alike, heads a family that runs/supports the nation's theives guilds, while using his position as king to legitimize those actions, and hails from a region that is rekindling age old issues with their southern counterparts to not be simply neutral. YMMV)
So, what I ask now is, shall we continue albeit with a slightly altered hand-wave of the action outside the warehouse? I offer my assurances, as a DM, not GM, of nearly 30 years, the sandbox has not been damaged and the AP is intact. I built a castle on the edge of it that you don't have to play with if you don't want to.
As I have previously stated. I would really love to see us continue. And I sincerely hope nobody leaves. I believe we have already established a bit of camaraderie. Flynn winks at Almathea
Yes, a thousand times yes. Continue just as you were doing beforehand.
Sorry it's taken so long for a response, but I wanted to discuss this with Amalthea before responding. With apologies to the group we won't be continuing.
If this had been the first time we ran into this problem then I'd be happy to give it a shot (in fact, I don't think this issue would have even come up.) But unfortunately this is the same issue we ran into during the last game we played with Kalizar. Sadly, it seems like we just aren't on the same page for games and that's not going to be fun for either of us. (Perhaps we should play a game *with* each other sometime and we'll get each others perspectives better. As in, both players in the same game under another GM.)
I really enjoyed roleplaying with Adreccam and Flynn (and of course Raktin, but he already knows me) and again, we're really sorry to drop out on you all.
I may have an alternative. Worth a try?
Alright, have thought this over.
Sorry to see Viktor and Almathea go, and anyone else who may leave.
@DM Kalizar: Once we figure out who is staying and who is going, can we post for replacement players? Specifically, I figure we should only be looking for spellcasters to replace the two we are losing. Give it a week. Hopefully those staying can have a voice in the process. Though I would bow to your knowledge of how you imagine everything fitting together.
I am fine with posting for replacement players, and a week to look over and review seems a fine time frame. Spellcasters only seems a decent request, any particulars you, Adreccam, or Raktin (should he remain) want to preclude or prefer?
I welcome input from those players staying, in fact I prefer it. You will be gaming with the new players, I'll only be DMing.
We had one player completely disappear from the messageboards in one of the other PbPs; he hasn't been seen on the boards for almost two weeks now, no warning, no explanation. I was going to offer, should this game fall completely apart, spots in one of the other games, for anyone wishing to continue, but not wishing to resuscitate this one.