Hello all
During one of our D'n'D games using the crimson throne adventure path, our group ran into a problem. Now, unlike most of our campaigns, there hasn't really been any disagreements between the players and the DM, until we reached the last part of the first book.
WARNING, SPOILERS
At the end of the book, where blackjack saves the girl from excecution. Now, in all honesty, I hated this part of the book, and I got the impression at one or two of the other players where unhappy with it as well. The DM said this scene is what paizo described as a "cinematic".
My question is...does the crimson throne adventure path have any more of these?
|
(Spoiler text in case people aren't sure what I'm talking about, since I'm assuming you don't want to know what these scenes actually involve) There is another one at the beginning of the third book
I've just started running Crimson Throne so I'd be really interested to know what you didn't like about the scene? I quite like it and I've already got some ideas for some interesting little personal touches to add, but if there's something I can do to make the scene more enjoyable for my players, It'd be cool to know...
I'm curious to know what the problem was as well.
Hello all
During one of our D'n'D games using the crimson throne adventure path, our group ran into a problem. Now, unlike most of our campaigns, there hasn't really been any disagreements between the players and the DM, until we reached the last part of the first book.
WARNING, SPOILERS
At the end of the book, where blackjack saves the girl from excecution. Now, in all honesty, I hated this part of the book, and I got the impression at one or two of the other players where unhappy with it as well. The DM said this scene is what paizo described as a "cinematic".My question is...does the crimson throne adventure path have any more of these?
I don't see why a group would react poorly to a cinematic scene that introduces/showcases a major NPC. Blackjack is supposed to come off like Zorro, hes all flash and swashbuckle.
The players are far enough away that they cant truly make a difference, and its a bit more flavor for the setting which lines up hooks later on. Does this group feel that they are the only ones who would be able to act/oppose the queen? Were they led to believe the entirety of the city was blind to her doings or too terrified to act?
I am curious as well to hear just what left this bad feeling in the people's mouths about the scene, looking forward to a reply!
I think the fundamental problem is that the scene gives mixed messages: is it a movie that the PCs are meant to sit quietly and watch, or a real even that they are meant to interact with?
Showing movies to the PCs does not work well for my group: my GM refused to run this scene as a result. This one is particularly bad because many people other than the PCs are in a position to act--but they don't, leading to an unreal feeling. It can come across like a cut-scene in a video game--"Yes, we have to watch this to learn about the plot, but we're not *playing*."
If the PCs are meant to intervene, though, the GM does not have enough information to run the scene fairly (no NPC stats) and will have to fudge it. This also leads to an unreal feeling if the players notice. In my experience, they usually do.
My GM felt that the bare minimum would be full stats for Blackjack and class and level for everyone else who was likely to act. This would eat up a lot of pagecount, and also commit Paizo to numbers for NPCs they would probably prefer to keep ambiguous until later.
I don't know of a great solution. The scene could be moved offstage, but a lot of people have objected to having so many major offstage events. You could try to stack the deck in describing it so that the PCs knew they could not reasonably intervene, but this leads back towards "Yawn, it's just a movie, we're not really allowed to do anything" which is a player reaction I'd prefer to avoid.
It was also a problem for me personally that the message of the scene seems to be "Daring and rash actions are rewarded" but this is not the way that APs play out for us: the PCs must be extremely careful and plan very well in order to survive. So it's just irritating to see an NPC do something dashing but stupid and succeed. When *we* do something dashing but stupid it's a TPK. (Though seeing Blackjack cut down like a dog would have been bad for morale, so I'm not recommending that either.)
Mary
I think Mary summed up my feelings pretty well. At the end of the day, if I wanted to have a scene described to me, I'd simply read a book.
The scene just makes me feel like my character is simply a side-kick, just there to aid the hero (which is Blackjack in this case)but not actually do anything relevent. Actaully...even less than a side-kick, since they will still get some of the spot-light. The "cinematic" would have played out as it did regardless of whether or not my character was present.
It also created alot of inconsitancies. One player there had thought of a good idea involving a few spells (knock, major image, invisability etc). As it stands, the only reason I could see this plan not working was if the Queen just happeneded to have a high level caster present. But if one was present, why would his magic do nothing to Blackjack? This also lead to some minor conflict between said player and the DM, and as mentioned in my earlier post, this was the only time during the entire campaign in which this happened.
I thought alot of the crimson throne stuff was good, but once this happened my opinion of it went downhill.
|
|
Ahh, I was wondering if it was something along these lines. There is a bit of an issue in that the scene says that the players can interact as they wish, but doesn't really give any info on how to run those interactions other than "If they roll high, they pass". For what it's worth this is how I'm going to run the scene:
1) I'll introduce the scene, telling the players that I'll be narrating some action as well as setting the scene, and they can interrupt me at any time when they want to affect what's going on.
2) Basically as soon as Blackjack turns up, the Queen will get the hell out of Dodge, simply because he's an utterly unknown quantity and he's riling up the riff-raff. Obviously her high level retinue will be going with her as protection.
3) If the players try to interfere with the Queen's escape then at that point I'll have to pull the "You fail" card as neither her nor her retinue have confirmed stats yet (plus messing with her will get the party killed), but again I'll try to flavour it in as believable a way as I can manage (if necessary having a high-level wizard around covering her retreat with counterspells etc.). With 3+ characters of over 10th level vs a 4th level party, running the numbers will mostly be a waste of everyone's time, on the other hand, if they have cool ideas for distracting the queen's minions away from Blackjack, then that's perfectly valid.
4) If the players try to aid Blackjack then awesome, if they have good plans then they can be the deciding factor in his escape and he'll be seriously indebted to them. Of course if they did nothing he would still get away, but I'm going to try to avoid letting my players know that, by running all the effects of their actions, some fights with the generic guards with stats from All the World's Meat, etc.
5) If the players try to stop Blackjack (I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario knowing my party, but anything is possible), then fortunately Blackjack's stats are available in book 3 (just add the equipment to the man :). If they want to take him on up close they'll need to get past the crowd (who'll be in the midst of Three Musketeers-style schenanigans, guards being tripped over by commoners, drunkards spilling their tankards over wizards trying to cast magic missile at Blackjack etc.) if they take on the man himself and take him down, then 's all good, I'll cut any scenes involving Trinia or Blackjack in subsequent volumes, and Cyrus will get a rather gut-wrenching scene when Blackjack is unmasked and he sees who he's condemned to a slow death in the dungeons :D. They may even have the opportunity to bust the guy out in the final volume, who knows?
Sorry, that was probably over-long, but that's my complete take on the scene. It probably also helps that I have no problem with taking the limelight away from the characters for a single scene, it reinforces that they're still small fish at this point, plus they're the stars of the show for the entire AP, Blackjack is just getting a guest star slot :). As for the NPC getting away with rash actions issue, he gets away with it entirely because he's Blackjack, in the same vein as Zorro etc. he can get away from a situation which should kill him because he's got hundreds of years of legends of his mighty acts for the benefit of the city at his back. As a result, the average person in the city (including many of the town guard!) is going to want to back him up, and those he opposes, are frankly, going to be s+$#-scared.
|
|
Well guess im just abandoning Dming this then (yes im the dm that ran it)
That seems a bit unnecessary, it sounds like the AP is going fine bar this one scene. If this kind of scene bothers your players, then for any subsequent "Cinematic" scenes you can just a) cut them completely or replace them with the same net outcome but less of a dramatic centrepiece b) have them happen off-camera, or c) throw together some NPC stats (or pilfer them from later volumes) and prep a few encounters for your PCs to participate in if they choose to try and contribute, and flavour/alter the outcome so they feel like they've made a real difference.
|
That seems a bit unnecessary, it sounds like the AP is going fine bar this one scene. If this kind of scene bothers your players, then for any subsequent "Cinematic" scenes you can just a) cut them completely or replace them with the same net outcome but less of a dramatic centrepiece b) have them happen off-camera, or c) throw together some NPC stats (or pilfer them from later volumes) and prep a few encounters for your PCs to participate in if they choose to try and contribute, and flavour/alter the outcome so they feel like they've made a real difference.
Yeah I think a little planning and a small amount of work you could make this scene a pretty cool and memorable one.
Creative Director
|
Again... the cinematics were sort of an experiment, and judging by the feedback we've been receiving, folk seem to be a bit resistant to them. You can expect there to not be cut-scenes like this in future Adventure Paths as a result.
That said, I still think that they work pretty well. It's also a convenient, compact way to deliver key story elements into a campaign without having to spend pages on stat blocks and maps and all that. Part of the problem, I suspect, is trying to cram TOO much adventure into the adventure.
Infrequent use in the right places are good for me. It's just another tool to portray the story. Again, as with all things, the DM needs to take into consideration their unique party dynamics. But that goes the same with any tools a DM uses.
Again... the cinematics were sort of an experiment, and judging by the feedback we've been receiving, folk seem to be a bit resistant to them. You can expect there to not be cut-scenes like this in future Adventure Paths as a result.
That said, I still think that they work pretty well. It's also a convenient, compact way to deliver key story elements into a campaign without having to spend pages on stat blocks and maps and all that. Part of the problem, I suspect, is trying to cram TOO much adventure into the adventure.
Again... the cinematics were sort of an experiment, and judging by the feedback we've been receiving, folk seem to be a bit resistant to them. You can expect there to not be cut-scenes like this in future Adventure Paths as a result.
That said, I still think that they work pretty well. It's also a convenient, compact way to deliver key story elements into a campaign without having to spend pages on stat blocks and maps and all that. Part of the problem, I suspect, is trying to cram TOO much adventure into the adventure.
What about an experiment where the adventure provides bullet points of what needs to be accomplished, and then supplies a cut-scene as an example of a way to do it? People who want to develop things more could use the bullet points to know what the scene had to accomplish, and people who didn't have time to do prep could just flesh out the descriptions in the cut-scene and use that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again... the cinematics were sort of an experiment, and judging by the feedback we've been receiving, folk seem to be a bit resistant to them. You can expect there to not be cut-scenes like this in future Adventure Paths as a result.
That said, I still think that they work pretty well. It's also a convenient, compact way to deliver key story elements into a campaign without having to spend pages on stat blocks and maps and all that. Part of the problem, I suspect, is trying to cram TOO much adventure into the adventure.
James,
Don't be entirely discouraged. Many of us like, or even love, these scenes. I haven't said much yet because I haven't got to run it yet. While I can't be 100% certain of player responses, I am as certain as I can be that they will enjoy the scene. Remember James, as a general rule people who don't like things will speak up, loudly and lots, while people who like things will remain contentedly silent.
For my sake, I hope more people who liked the AP and its cinematic scenes, read threads like these and feel the need to respond, cause we are out here. Many of us are too busy enjoying your work to spend lots of time online telling you what you are doing right.
graywulfe
|
Creative Director
|
For my sake, I hope more people who liked the AP and its cinematic scenes, read threads like these and feel the need to respond, cause we are out here. Many of us are too busy enjoying your work to spend lots of time online telling you what you are doing right.
That's an excellent point. If you DO enjoy the cut-scene type encounters, we need to hear about it. If we don't I basically have to assume that the folk who DID enjoy them didn't enjoy them enough to rave about them. Another example of a new type of encounter we introduced in Pathfinder, of course, was the haunt. This created a lot of traffic on the boards here as well; some folk hated them, but the vast majority seemed to like them. We haven't heard much support for the cinematic encounters yet, though... that may just be because folk haven't really had a chance to try them out yet, but we've certainly heard a lot form folk who don't like them.
|
|
I'm behind Graywulfe with this, the reason I haven't raved about them is simply because I haven't run them, in a month or so I could well be bouncing up and down with glee from running the Blackjack scene :D. I loved reading both it and the assassination scene, and knowing my players, their ability to immerse themselves in the plot and their need for story over mechanics (we play very rules-light, character driven indie games fairly regularly, though we mostly run D&D as pretty vanilla 3.5 oddly), I think they're going to love them too. As I've said elsewhere, I'm intending to have them present for the assassination so they can see the whole horrific scene play out, the characters are a pretty smart bunch and I'll be dropping lots of hints about Sabina and Togomor's power, so I trust them not to do something idiotic.
Don't know if I came across as rather critical of the scenes in my posts above. I've mostly been thinking about them quite a bit, as I want to add in some really rich descriptions and generally make them as dynamic and exciting as possible, so I figured I may be able to help out anyone who is having problems :).
Again... the cinematics were sort of an experiment, and judging by the feedback we've been receiving, folk seem to be a bit resistant to them. You can expect there to not be cut-scenes like this in future Adventure Paths as a result.
I can only speak for myself, but for me the problem is not the idea of having cinematic scenes (i.e. scenes where an NPC takes the spotlight) per se, but rather the execution of the cinematic scenes (i.e. handwaving rules and/or logic in order to advance the plot).
I love the cut scene! Have used it in my games and will continue to do so. Great that you have them, too! Do I remember correctly that in Hangman's Noose there was one at the end?
|
Both me and my players loved the cutscene. I liked it because it wasn't as rule intensive as these things could turn out to be, and my players liked it because it tells them they aren't the only active party out there. It's like the whole thing with railroading, it shouldn't be too rigid, or too open ended. Similarly players shouldn't be saved or become obsolete because of "deus ex machina" events, neither should everyone in the world exist only to react to their actions, things should and do happen without the players influence and pointing that out from time to time makes the world seem more real, more alive.
To me, this is a table problem, not a module problem. There's absolutely no reason for the players to know that they are in a cut scene unless you tell them or run it awkwardly.
If you absolutely must, it's very easy to draw up a courtyard on a map, throw down some markers (representing aristocrats, guards, drunkards, etc.), figures for the major figures and run it exactly as if it were a normal scene.
That's because it is a normal scene: they can affect the action, they have choices, and there are effective limits to what they can accomplish. What's the problem here?
You have stats for guards, aristocrats, commoners, and Blackjack (in #3). And if you don't have the stats for Blackjack: FAKE IT. Any differences can be chalked up to leveling while adventuring or different gear or whatnot.
James, if you want to use cut scenes in the future and throw DMs who have trouble with these kinds of scenes a bone, it's real easy: give them a class level and HP, such as "Blackjack (currently Rogue X, Y HP)."
I wont know for a while but i think my party will be split some will like them some wont
I think the cut scenes are good ways t advance the story instead of just reading trina got away with a man dressed in black
For the record, I loved the Blackjack scene and my players thought it was awesome. I described what the main NPCs were doing and they added in their own flavor. One player nonchalantly tripped a guard that was rushing toward Blackjack and another used a cantrip to add confusion to the situation. The fact that he gave them a salute before diving off to freedom was all the reward they needed.
The fact that they all loved Jack of All Trades is beside the point.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To me, this is a table problem, not a module problem. There's absolutely no reason for the players to know that they are in a cut scene unless you tell them or run it awkwardly.
See, and I think the players are having the opposite problem. (Which goes to show, I guess, that different people like D&D in different ways.)
For me, "cinematic scenes" are another way of saying "boxed text".
As a player, I have no problem with a cinematic scene as long as I understand that I'm watching one. If the GM makes it clear that something's happening, that the PC's should know about, but that they really won't have an opportunity to influence, I don't think there'd be any problem. It feels like getting information.
If they don't understand that this scene is different, if they expect that they will be able to influence things, and they can't, then that's frustrating. It feels like failure.
So, try starting with, "okay: put away your dice for the next five minutes."
|
|
To weigh in on this subject as there's been a fair amount of discussion re the Blackjack scene, and the assassination attempt. I like how the Blackjack scene is done and I think players that are more keen on the story elements are likely to go along with them (as a generalization) and enjoy them. As presented it is a dashing, bit of heroic business and introduces a useful ally who shows that he can hold his own.
As per the mixed signals of who's centrestage given that PCs are nearly always the centre a brief sharing of the limelight I don't think should cause too much upset (again dependent on your players).
As an alternative to the presented Blackjack scene instead of the PCs being present for the execution they could hear about what happened as word on the street travels. One would probably make the execution a less public affair as presented or Blackjack retrieves Trinia from the castle dungeon. This takes away the perceived awkwardness of the event being a standard encounter but without the usual statblocks, etc.. It just becomes another background event. (Though it does take away the immediacy and drama of the scene).
I'm just starting to run this path and plan to use this scene as is but that is also based on the group I'm running it for. As per the inclusion of these sort of scenes in Pathfinder I'm in favour of them (albeit sparingly).
If they don't understand that this scene is different, if they expect that they will be able to influence things, and they can't, then that's frustrating. It feels like failure.
But they can influence it. The text says that they can stop him. It says that they can help him get away.
I guess I don't get how this is all that different from any other scene.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My apologies, roguerogue. I'm remembering some of the cinematic scenes from later in the storyline, and I couldn't remember the Blackjack scene, and I assumed it was a "boxed text" kind of scenario, too.
But, if there are parts of the scene that just happen, outside the PC's ability to affect, I stick with the opinion that the GM should make that aspect of those parts clear.
I agree with roguerogue on this one. Other than not having the stats for Blackjack, there is nothing about this scene that the players cannot get involved in. You run the scene as normal, and when Blackjack swopes down to the executioner, the GM can ask the players what they want to do? Help Blackjack? Stop him? Be subtle about helping him? The text at this point even says, "What happens here is up to the PCs."
Although the text says "don't run this encounter as a battle - think of it more as an interactive scene the PCs can take part in" all that means is that Blackjack will automatically win his challenges - provided the players do not intervene.
The text even clarifies that should the PCs intervene and stop Blackjack, then he's captured and Trinia is executed, although that may cause issues later on.
There is nothing preventing a GM from involving the players. If the GM thinks, "Well, I'd need more mechanics to make this work as an encounter," well then the GM better whip up some mechanics.
This sounds to me that the GM might have been too slavish to the module and didn't prepare it properly. It's OK to make adjustments. I can understand that one expects a published adventure to contain most of what you need to play, but the additional prep for this scene doesn't seem too much for me.
|
|
Problem is reason I chose to run this is because I enjoy the cinematic scenes. If im rebuilding everything to get rid of them im just as well starting from scratch and making up my own campaign.
I don't think anyone's suggesting "rebuilding everything" or "starting from scratch".
Just because you decide that a single scene doesn't (or in this case, didn't) work well for your campaign, doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I have never run a campaign (pre-written or otherwise) in which everything ended up going 100% "by the book". Part of the joy of playing an RPG is that the story (and the characters involved) take on a life of their own. As a result, you never know for sure what the characters will do, or where exactly the story will go. Essentially, the DM is the main author of the story, with three or four or more players/co-authors contributing to the final product.
Notice that in this analogy, Paizo, or Richard Pett, or any other of their fine contributors are NOT the authors. They may have written the outline, but YOU and YOUR PLAYERS are the authors of your own story/destiny.
So enjoy. If something doesn't work they way you thought it would, learn from it and do it differently next time. It doesn't mean you have to reinvent the wheel. Just reimagine what your group's "wheel" looks like.
|
|
Just a thought...
If your players are heavily into the story-telling aspect of D&D (mine usually are), then it might be an interesting experiment to have the players assume different roles for the cut scenes.
In the Blackjack/assassination scenes, instead of playing their usual characters (who conveniently aren't present), the players might take on the roles of nobles come to watch the festivities, servants charged with keeping the nobles' wineglasses full and their boots polished, or even guards assigned to crowd control.
In the sinking of the Direption, the players might become dock workers witnessing the passage of the ship through the channel, beggars scrounging for scraps (or plague-ridden coffers) along the shore, or even city guards manning the trebuchets.
The main purpose would be give the players a first hand account of the events, without having to worry about them having enough power to derail the story. If they try something extremely crazy/foolhardy, well, these NPC's are essentially red-shirts anyway, right?
The other main advantage is the immediate impression the players get that "Ok, we're doing something different now. This isn't a traditional scenario, because I'm playing a completely different character. But I still get to interact, ask questions, etc. Cool."
Obviously, this would only work with the right kind of players. Players who can separate themselves from their PC's for the sake of the story. Other players might end the speculated quote above with "Lame." instead of "Cool."
|
|
Let me add my vote for cut scenes like this. It may be due to the fact that i mostly run PbP-games but I use and even write them myself and my players seem to love them so far.
my players are of the "let us tell a good story" ilk and as it seems that's exactly the approach Paizo has used for its APs so far. I think tbug's idea is a good one, though. If you'd expand the advice how to run those cut scenes for people who wnat to be more actively involved, that should be sufficient to make all players happy.
What is the point of an Adventure Path if there's no path? My gamers enjoyed the Blackjack scene, and gained their interest in the character. IMHO, you need times where the focus isn't solely on the PCs; otherwise the rest of the world starts looking and sounding like cardboard set pieces the PCs get to walk around in.
I vote for more such moments. I also think Chris hits it right on; as long as most players know what they're seeing isn't something they can influence, they're cool with it.
That said, there are some cinematic scenes that need to take place offscreen:
VMMV, of course...but I buy scenarios for the story. Where I take the players from there is more my responsibility as GM than the scriptwriter.
I don't mind a good story, unless it's at the expense of the PCs. As I keep saying, the plan my friend came up with is my honest opinion ten times better than someone rushing up, untying her, then rushing back out. At the end of the day, the only reason this player was denied his plan was because it would cause alot of problems with this "cinematic".
In short, if you like it, fair enough, but don't claim that my dislike for them is because my group isn't "into story". We are, we just don't like being railroaded in such a heavy fashion. Quite frankly, the impression I'm left with is that yes, my character could intervine, but we'll acheive the same results if we just stand in a corner and do nothing.
I think that part of the split response to scenes like this may depend on whether the players have had bad experiences with "GM's favorite NPC" syndrome before. Once you've had a game or two spoiled by GM's-favorite problems you become itchy and hypersensitive about it.
So, rather than removing the cut scenes completely, it might be a good idea to vet each one and ask, "If the players have had bad experiences with the GM putting the spotlight on their own NPC, using fiat to make that NPC succeed, and expecting the players to applaud, is this scene going to leave a bad taste in their mouths?"
I have personally seen two games spoiled by the GM's desire to get applause for an NPC, and I'm not entirely innocent as a GM myself. I think it's a pretty common experience.
Another test I would suggest: "If a PC did this, would the GM want to allow it?" In particular, I know that a 4th level party might not be able to duplicate what Blackjack does, but would a PC of Blackjack's level be encouraged to try? Remember that players take their cues from what the GM presents: you shouldn't hint that a certain kind of play is desirable unless it actually is.
Speaking for myself as a player, I don't mind seeing that there are people more powerful and capable than the PCs and they are doing something useful about the situation. In fact, I complained long and loud that SCAP didn't have people like that. But I really dislike the fact that they do something I don't believe I'd be allowed to do, even with PCs of that level.
Mary
I think that part of the split response to scenes like this may depend on whether the players have had bad experiences with "GM's favorite NPC" syndrome before. Once you've had a game or two spoiled by GM's-favorite problems you become itchy and hypersensitive about it.
I suffered this recently, so I understand how that might rub someone the wrong way. However, my players had no problems with a legendary hero getting five minutes of spotlight and were happy to help him.
Part of the problem is that if the modules are being run as they come out, the GM is information-starved. He doesn't know what class or level most of the NPCs here are. He doesn't know how painful it will be if the scene doesn't go as written--will it be easy to fix or will he have to throw out whole large sections? I understand that there is a sidebar with this scene that describes some of the GM's options, but frankly, until you have the later modules in your hands you just can't be sure.
We had severe problems with this in RotRL:
Module 1 asks the GM to arrange social interactions between the PCs and Aldern. Module 2 has detailed backstory for Aldern. If you run #1 when it comes out, and the PCs actually talk to Aldern and try to find out about him, you're in deep trouble--if you make something up it will contradict #2, if you don't make something up Aldern will seem either unappealingly evasive or just plain cardboard.
In my RotRL campaign the scenes in #1 just fell flat: Aldern was so evasive, the PCs never made any connection with him. (They made up for this spectacularly in #2, luckily.)
I know it's technically difficult, but I would *really* appreciate it as a GM if the writeup for any given NPC were in the first module where that NPC plays a significant role--not in a later one.
You could, of course, also say "Never run an AP until you have all issues in hand." But it's clear that not everyone is willing to wait; and frankly, a monthly magazine is an infuriating format if you can't use it as it comes out!
Mary
I don't mind a good story, unless it's at the expense of the PCs. As I keep saying, the plan my friend came up with is my honest opinion ten times better than someone rushing up, untying her, then rushing back out. At the end of the day, the only reason this player was denied his plan was because it would cause alot of problems with this "cinematic".
Ouch. Sympathies. I think your GM made a bad error of judgment. Running cut-scenes is one thing, but stepping on a reasonable PC plan in order to preserve the cut-scene is really a mistake. I've seen whole campaigns die because of events like this.
Mary
|
I don't mind a good story, unless it's at the expense of the PCs. As I keep saying, the plan my friend came up with is my honest opinion ten times better than someone rushing up, untying her, then rushing back out. At the end of the day, the only reason this player was denied his plan was because it would cause alot of problems with this "cinematic".Ouch. Sympathies. I think your GM made a bad error of judgment. Running cut-scenes is one thing, but stepping on a reasonable PC plan in order to preserve the cut-scene is really a mistake. I've seen whole campaigns die because of events like this.
Mary
I too have seen groups break apart because of staying to ridged to either the rules or the plan of the module. The Dm needs to be able to hover somewhere in the middle. Occasionally, the scales will tp one way or the other. Yes, this cinematography could have been negated, or blackjack could have bided his time (I'm sure somewhere he has something to see through illusions to know something was up) and when the PCs got in trouble trying to get Trina out of the city, Blackjack could show up and help. With his legendary status, Trina might be more willing to go with him than with the PCs anyway. It might be a little less cinematic, but if the PCs are in a tough battle with guards, the knave can still stab a few, nab trina, do his bow/flip and get out of sight.
|
|
I'm not overly worried about the cut scenes in general, it's taking into account game mechanics and tossing them out for story to be my concern. Now don't get me wrong, I am hardly one of those GMs who doesn't bend and fudge rules on occassion for heroic effort and good story within the realm of reason, but...
So unless they are less intrusive into the world of machanical possibility (again, within reaon) then I haven't an issue, otherwise I vote nay for future books.
-DM Jeff
Honestly, I have tried and tried to see what the big deal is with that effing crossbow bolt and I cannot figure it out.
|
Creative Director
|
One other thing to keep in mind:
One of the complaints we kept seeing pop up in Runelords was that the "Main Bad Guy" felt a little tacked on. He doesn't get really much screen time at all before the final battle, so that to a certain extent, by the time the PCs fight him, they've heard his name enough but the impact of confronting him is somewhat diminished.
With Crimson Throne, we're trying to give Ileosa a LOT more screen time than Karzoug, between encounters with PCs and cut scenes that show her doing her thing without PCs. And since she's really powerful really fast (CR 20 by adventure 3), it's unfair to throw the PCs up against her before they're able to at least have enough skill and power to run away.
It's a sort of balancing act. Just keep in mind that if you take most or all of Ileosa's scenes out of the adventure, you might end up with a BBEG who the PCs don't have anything invested in defeating.
I am getting ready to DM this campaign in about a month, but have read through the first three adventures.
I have found it better not to run the campaigns until you get the first three issues, that way you can make you story arcs meld better to your party and make any changes before they get into the path too far.
I think that the Blackjack scene will be a nice addition to the campaign. To be honest, I am giving the characters in my campaign some pretty specific add ons to their background, one being that they have grown up hearing about this city hero called Blackjack. As children most of them would have wanted to be him, meet him, and help him.
When he shows up it will be a big shock, and I don't doubt if they will be torn on what to do when they see him.
I will be interested to see what they do end up doing as I plan to run this like a pre-planned encounter which they will be able to influence.
For the other scene with the sable company commander, I may run that as a story told by Croft (I think it is) so the PC's won't be there. I don't like the mechanics ont hat one, but I can make it work if it is told by another NPC who was there whose words will hold great weight with the party.
|
|
For the other scene with the sable company commander, I may run that as a story told by Croft (I think it is) so the PC's won't be there. I don't like the mechanics ont hat one, but I can make it work if it is told by another NPC who was there whose words will hold great weight with the party.
This is just what I am leaning towards as well, good thought. I may wind up adding in some other flourishes that maybe hint at some invisible spell use or somesuch on the Queen's part.
And for Mr. Jacobs' remark about getting to know the BBEG early on, I agree that's the way to go and look forward to the group hating her early on!
-DM Jeff
|
|
James, if you want to use cut scenes in the future and throw DMs who have trouble with these kinds of scenes a bone, it's real easy: give them a class level and HP, such as "Blackjack (currently Rogue X, Y HP)."
Agreed.
The bullet points suggested earlier would also be nice. Nicolas (or an editor) did include some text to the effect of, "If your players take actions that require rolls, let 'em roll. High results work in favor of their desired actions, while low rolls represent failure or even new obstacles." Or... something close to that.
I read that "scene" and just smiled. I will be 'doing my homework' and having some things prepared if my players get really physically involved with the action. Please don't completely bail on the cinematics concept.
I enjoy the plot and NPC character development aided by the cut scenes. However, I want the GM to be able to look at the scene and understand how it could actually work within the rules mechanics, so that players can interact if appropriate, or at least be able to draw accurate conclusions. So I would say, don't get rid of them entirely, but make sure they are well thought out when you use them.
Note that all cut scenes are not created equal. The different cut scenes cause a different degree of difficulty:
PF7 - The Blackjack rescue scene is fairly easy to stage, with the main difficulty being that you need to figure out why there are no magical detection and protection spells active to prevent such a rescue. But that's not too far-fetched. The actions and their motives are reasonable.
PF8 - The Sinking of the Ship scene is very troublesome. Not only are the mechanics of how that ship is sunk at that location fairly unrealistic, but the whole plan for why it is sunk there is overly complicated and ill conceived. This is discussed in depth in another thread.
PF9 - The Assassination Attempt is moderately difficult to make believable. As written, it makes little sense. Some heavy backup of the motives and actions has to be decided by the GM, so that PCs are not mislead by the description. This is also discussed in depth in another thread.
I enjoy the plot and NPC character development aided by the cut scenes. However, I want the GM to be able to look at the scene and understand how it could actually work within the rules mechanics, so that players can interact if appropriate, or at least be able to draw accurate conclusions. So I would say, don't get rid of them entirely, but make sure they are well thought out when you use them.
Well said! I agree completely.
PF9 - The Assassination Attempt is moderately difficult to make believable. As written, it makes little sense. Some heavy backup of the motives and actions has to be decided by the GM, so that PCs are not mislead by the description. This is also discussed in depth in another thread.
YMMV. I stated in that thread that I failed to see the difficulty in selling the idea that the assassin seriously underestimated his quarry and suggested that it was simplicity itself to describe her survival as being driven by DR or Fast Healing mechanics.
|
|
James--
Please put me firmly in the "really enjoys cutscenes" category, along with the three groups I'm running currently. I use them regularly, and my players have never once objected. Its how we play, and we like it.
I think the majority of folks like (or at least don't hate enough to bother with writing about it) the cinematic aspects. I do, however, think they fit far better with an AP like CotCT than a more traditional RotRL style game.
PLEASE don't stop experimenting and trying new and exciting things. The chase rules you came up with in Edge of Anarchy are fantastic, for example, and helped me run a tense, white-knuckle sprint up a forested mountainside just yesterday.
Please don't let a vocal minority sway you, James. Not everybody (in fact, not even most, I'd wager) are active enough on the boards to represent those who love what you're doing well enough. A vocal, negative minority shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.