ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: wyvern on February 15, 2011, 06:48:15 PM
-
So, last game session, my players hunted down and destroyed a fairly nasty supernatural predator. And then they found its nest. With eggs. Being the crazy people they are, they've decided to see if they can raise the babies. Whether they're trying to get model citizens (think Thomas, maybe?) or well trained attack dogs isn't clear yet - it'll likely depend on the actual intellect of the creature type - which they don't know.
So, the question is: what can go wrong with this idea? (Or, alternatively, how should they go about this to have a chance at succeeding?) I don't want to make it flat out impossible for them to achieve any measure of success, but I darned well don't want to make it easy, either. Are there any other games out there where someone's decided to raise a truly exotic pet or child, and how did it go?
While I'd love specific suggestions for my particular beasties, I also know that my players will read this thread - so I'll put below the details they "know", and ask that people PM me if they want more information, or have some particularly evil suggestion that won't work if the players know about it.
* * * *
The specific creature is (my interpretation of) an Uktena - a form of evil horned serpent that's the traditional enemy of the native american Thunderbird.
The particular one they fought was actually quadrupedal, albeit with a very serpentine build (there are implications that uktena were designed based on dinosaur fossils, so they weren't all pure snake), and was primarily a physical combatant - very durable, weapon: 6 claw attacks, chameleon skin (yes, it was a dirty cheater as far as the normal uktena vulnerability; one of the PCs used the Sight and found its weak spot anyway, though.)
It also had a gem set in its forehead that granted it access to a form of magic - it made a few attempts to use psychomancy to inflict crippling pain, though it's fairly certain that it has some degree of broader powers, probably including poison. Nobody yet knows if that gem is a biological part of the creature, or something grafted on via ritual - if the former, then the PCs will eventually (or immediately?) have to deal with their new pets picking up a particularly vicious form of sponsored magic...
In the meantime, their research has indicated that these creatures feed on (or at least can feed on) pain and fear and despair; though it's not unreasonable to assume that a sufficient amount of mundane food could also provide sustenance.
-
There are two directions to consider:
1) The kind of game you want to run
2) The kind of game they want to play
Raising the orphaned young of a defeated monster is a classic D&D trope, but it is usually for either profit or for other combat advantage, both of which is a little hard to model easily (though not impossible) in DFRPG/FATE.
More by PM.
-
My thought is that unless they are actually sentient then they're likely predators by nature, and even if they're well trained it'll be like keeping a tiger for a pet. One wrong move and suddenly you have a highly efficient killing machine eating you.
For that matter if they feed psychically how is one going to stop them? Won't they feed by the most expedient process regardless of how they're raised? They might even get sneakier about feeding that way if the players figure out how to discourage them from doing it.
-
Well, maybe have the gem be organic, but develop as they age. So no real magic, but maybe Glamours at first. I'd make the animal unruly, but child-like. Make it teachable, but hard to teach. Extended contests on who is the boss, on eating the toys, etc. Once they are grown, I'd say make them cat-like in personality.
-
First question: are they born evil or neutral? For evil, the "reformed" aspect fits better. For neutral, they could become theoretically good. Play up the predatory part to the max as well.
Second thought: Fear/Despair feeding could be what's powering the gem, and normal sustenance as always. Or first kill leads to the feeding dependency. Keep your options open.
-
If they aren't sentient then they aren't evil but predators that do things that we view as evil.
If they are sentient and they feed on negative emotions, then they could be modeled after the White Court. Since there's no external forced (the White Court demon) driving them then I doubt they would see what they do as wrong as they are only doing what comes naturally to them.
How could the players make the best of it? By finding an existing source of "pain and fear and despair". Say maybe a hospice that's barely limping by, so the creatures could just suck up the emotions of the people dying in squalid conditions. Train them to feed only on the naturally occurring emotions so the creatures aren't a threat to anyone.
How can the characters be screwed? Imagine finding your cute little pet standing over a body or surrounded injured people, and not understanding why you are upset - because all it did was what came naturally. I'm thinking a dog who doesn't understand that it's not supposed to kill pet rabbits or a cat that got into the hamster cage - something that operated on instincts and doesn't understand why it's being yelled at.
Or maybe the creature is a scion, of a line of scions that go back to the real beast and great-great-great-great etc grand daddy doesn't like its offspring being "perverted into doing good".
Or maybe there's a cult that follows the beast and wants the creatures to worship/serve as guards/whatever - and now that cult has to be dealt with.
Hope this helps.
Richard
-
Well, they did find the critter with some vaguely humanoid minions (handlers?) that they haven't put any effort into looking into yet, so the cult thing is eminently plausible...
I'm not going to specify if the critters are born neutral or evil, sentient or just plain hungry - see "My players will be reading this thread". Inconvenient, I know, but I've gotten some good ideas from people anyway. As well as some thoughts on further research; my next visit to the library will include looking up whatever I can find on training wild animals.
One thing I know I'll be doing, is suggesting that one or more of the PCs involved in this effort should probably change an aspect to something directly related - that way, when things go wrong, at least they'll be earning fate points (and potentially have some opportunity to buy off compels or otherwise exercise narrative control over the process...)
Though I must admit I'm kinda surprised that all the comments so far have been aimed at my specific case; I'd meant to open the thread up to general discussion as well - is this just something that hasn't come up for anybody else's game?
-
I would imagine, in general, training wild animals would be a Survival challenge, modified by Scholarship perhaps.
For supernatural critters, an extended challenge with both Survival, Scholarship *and* Lore. You may even want to run it like a Thaumaturgy Ritual, with Declarations happening in cutscenes to make a training montage.
It would be up to each situation/GM whether the animals as a whole are treated as a "crop" for this extended training challenge, or if each individual animal gets its own training montage.
If a trained creature is going to be a constant companion, though, this is all window dressing: the player should take an Aspect related to that relationship. The extended challenge dynamic may be a good RP mechanism to determine the nature of their relationship, but for plot purposes, its best to simply decide how that is going to work out and simply work out how to get there.
-
Are there any other games out there where someone's decided to raise a truly exotic pet or child, and how did it go?
Our game has an interesting, and as yet unresolved situation regarding a child who is a potential pawn (or more) for several supernatural factions. Originally, a nameless foundling, she has been an on-going focus for unusual occurances ranging from the homeless man on the street who shouted "abomination" and "spawn of Satan" to her inate preception of powers around her.
The PC's have recently learned more about her origins, but many questions remain. Currently, most of the tension is on two fronts. One centers around the doctor (Pure mortal / player character) who is now her foster mother and wants to adopt her. The other around the True Believer who must now deicide whether or not to destroy her, before she is claimed by the Forces of Evil.
I'm interested to see how it evolves, although the second player is not happy with me for presenting him with this particular moral dilemma.
-
If they don't find a way to purify these creatures so they don't feed on pain and suffering...seems like it should bite them in the face. Inherently evil stuff exists in the Dresdenverse and this sounds like an example of it. I mean, these creatures have a huge red flag on them, and one shouldn't just ignore that.
-
Well in the interests of opening things up:
In a recent dungeon, my PC's encountered a red-eyed powerful semi-pittbull looking animal, and one of them, with the aspect "feeds stray animals" did a declaration that she would have something edible to offer it. She did, she made friends (can't recall the social role that I used, or maybe it was animalcraft as a trapping of survival), long story short it was the mom of a mated pair of quite intelligent (think Mouse level of intelligence) scions of the wild hunt. They had a litter that was being held hostage (at one point the bad guy tells the 'parents' to attack, and adds "you know what I did to your other pups"); so it's not so much "raising" the pups, as they are quite intelligent, as having them as non-human neighbors. So far one PC who owns a haunted bookstore has offered them a place to stay.
Dian
-
Well, lots of people have already said lots of great stuff.. Already touched on a lot of my ideas, hehe... One other thing, i'm not sure was mentioned though, is what could have possibly occurred to the eggs before the players got there? Was the creature a natural supernatural baddy, or just a predator by nature? And either way, why was he in direct conflict with the players? I heard mention of a cult. Did the cult, and perhaps the leader place some form of spell upon the creature? If they did, have they already placed some form of preparation spell upon the children themselves, making them more malleable to the will of the master of the cult, or to make them natural monsters? Was this gem something natural, or something "attached" to the creature, and could this "trait" be bread through the eggs naturally?
Sorry if i touched on a lot of things that have already been hammered down... I did a glance over, a pretty good one too, but I'm tired as hell at the moment >.<
And for your second question, my gaming group has had a decent number of critter kinda pets going on... One of the ones that stick out most in my mind, is another I'd consider to be the most infamous...
It was a rather random occurance really... The GM had just a random encounter kinda idea... Honestly, he just threw something totally out of the blue at us, a Hippogryph of all things. It was night, in the middle of a raided village, on an open plain, before a tall, dark and very evil mountain, complete with castle/fortress to boot. The creature was completely out of place, and obviously meant to just be a quick fight. Instead, the Ranger tried to go out and make friends with it. That I'm fine with. But then, one of our less... Competent players drops her prepared attacks, as she realizes she can do something OTHER than fight it, and goes forward, ahead of the Ranger, attempting to calm it.. That would be fine, if the character would have had any business or any skills that would help in the manner. Instead, she was a very dumb, very narrow minded Paladin. And the GM, also being involved with said player, spent the next 5 to 10 minutes going through her character sheet, trying to come up with a roll that he could rationalize to himself, so she could "attempt" a roll of some sort. It ended up being something very silly, and he pretty much let her woo the animal far better then the poor Ranger, who was quickly pushed aside and ignored at this point. Several games later, no Feats or Skills taken to help her in her ways, she starts riding the intended encounter into battle, and through the air and all that fun stuff.
Basically, I'm perfectly fine with critters, and player doing things to surprise their GMs. The only time I start to get bothered with it, is when a player goes through the proper steps, the proper Feats, and the proper Skills, takes time and effort from his character to add something special, like a Cohort, or a special mount of some sort, gets completely and utterly overshadowed by a player who just randomly goes out and grabs a random, powerful/useful creature, and never bothers to work anything into their character sheet, other then under the Equipment section...
-
"I start to get bothered with it, is when a player goes through the proper steps, the proper Feats, and the proper Skills, takes time and effort from his character to add something special, like a Cohort, or a special mount of some sort, gets completely and utterly overshadowed by a player who just randomly goes out and grabs a random, powerful/useful creature, and never bothers to work anything into their character sheet, other then under the Equipment section..."
In all honesty I'd call that a failure in DMing, not in playing. But yes, a failure.
Dian
-
"I start to get bothered with it, is when a player goes through the proper steps, the proper Feats, and the proper Skills, takes time and effort from his character to add something special, like a Cohort, or a special mount of some sort, gets completely and utterly overshadowed by a player who just randomly goes out and grabs a random, powerful/useful creature, and never bothers to work anything into their character sheet, other then under the Equipment section..."
In all honesty I'd call that a failure in DMing, not in playing. But yes, a failure.
Dian
The Paladin comes across as a self-centered gloryhound or went and stole the spotlight from the Ranger in order to try to grab a cool mount. So a failure on both counts.
-
"I start to get bothered with it, is when a player goes through the proper steps, the proper Feats, and the proper Skills, takes time and effort from his character to add something special, like a Cohort, or a special mount of some sort, gets completely and utterly overshadowed by a player who just randomly goes out and grabs a random, powerful/useful creature, and never bothers to work anything into their character sheet, other then under the Equipment section..."
In all honesty I'd call that a failure in DMing, not in playing. But yes, a failure.
Dian
Been there, done that, lost a friendship. That game in particular was the origin of my rabid dislike of GMPCs.
-
Been there, done that, lost a friendship. That game in particular was the origin of my rabid dislike of GMPCs.
I had a GMPC once..kinda, though not be design. World of my own design and the players were dealing with a small group of dragonkin that had invaded. They easily dispatched most of them, but a kobold (dragonkin in this game) ran and hid in the "bathroom" of the small cave complex. He had been treated very badly by his superiors all his life and the players managed to befriend him and he followed them around everywhere. He was a lot less effective than the PCs though.
-
He was a lot less effective than the PCs though.
My PC was a glorified spear-carrier, and god forbid I took the spotlight away for three nanoseconds... >:( *deep breath* Sorry. The GM in question was the guy who introduced me to RPGs in the first place, but I never should have accepted a spot in his gaming group. Anyway, long time ago, water under bridge, all of that.
However, that experience is why I'm so leery of anything that smacks of GM favoritism. If I got a girlfriend, for example, I wouldn't let her play at my table because it's very easy to start making mistakes in that direction. And any favoritism or preferential treatment is poison to a friendly atmosphere at the gaming table. And GMPCs are the worst, because then it becomes something of a... self-stimulation exercise with witnesses. Good luck salvaging that game, and those friendships, if it goes too far.
-
I think you'd be missing out, if you didn't let an SO play at your table. If gaming is a part of your life, it should be a part you're willing to share.
My wife plays, and I've chased her hapless burglar character with construct rats fueled by Outsider magic up walls and across rooftops. She's consulted a voodoun priest about how to hold off a WCV who is very intent on putting her skills to use (for mutual benefit, of course...). She's had parts of buildings dissolved around her by an Outsider salesman trying to summon more of its kind through. (Epic Athletics dodge.) None of the other players seem to feel that there's any special treatment involved.
-
I agree with Bruce. My husband and I have gamed together for many years, both before and since our marriage. It is something we share. Admittedly, back in high school or even college my gaming groups were predominately male, but now we frequently game with other couples.
It has led to some amusing dialogue. For example, when Rianna was playing a male cleric who was married to my female paladin the following resulted from a confussion of pronouns:
"I know they're a couple, but I keep getting them mixed-up."
"Dude, my wife is the guy, and your wife is the chick." ;D
-
I'm just now introducing my fiancée to gaming and it's been good fun. Although hilariously DFRPG is the kind of thing that I like (with heavy story and character focus) and she just wants to stab goblins in the face, so I'm starting her on D&D 4th ed. Take that socially established gender norms!
-
I'm just now introducing my fiancée to gaming and it's been good fun. Although hilariously DFRPG is the kind of thing that I like (with heavy story and character focus) and she just wants to stab goblins in the face, so I'm starting her on D&D 4th ed. Take that socially established gender norms!
Ahh, 4th is a bit annoying. When I ran a 4th game my players were completely unwilling to be creative with their actions. The PHB is pretty horribly written in this regard, imho, and my players took it as a straight-jacket. I ended up letting everyone have a free thematic power they could make up on the spot once per encounter (with power similar to a daily using the rules on page 42 of the DMG)...even that only helped a little.
Hmm, in related news, most of the girls I have played with have also been big on stabbing things in the face.
-
Ahh, 4th is a bit annoying. When I ran a 4th game my players were completely unwilling to be creative with their actions. The PHB is pretty horribly written in this regard, imho, and my players took it as a straight-jacket. I ended up letting everyone have a free thematic power they could make up on the spot once per encounter (with power similar to a daily using the rules on page 42 of the DMG)...even that only helped a little.
1782. I will remember we're playing 4th edition and stop using my imagination. (http://theglen.livejournal.com/282764.html). There's a reason I refer to 4th Ed as "World Of Dungeoncraft"... ::)
-
Oh I won't argue the "world of dungeoncraft" moniker, but if you are only interested in stabbing things in the face, it's pretty good for that.
-
Oh I won't argue the "world of dungeoncraft" moniker, but if you are only interested in stabbing things in the face, it's pretty good for that.
Yeah. But only if you're only interested in stabbing things in the face. *shrug* It's not a bad system, I just think it's a step in the wrong direction. I will say this, though: it's a good intro to the tactical simulation aspects of RPGs for newbies. Once they master that, they can move onto something else, like, say, Pathfinder. ::)
-
Game systems seem to be going in two directions. Elaborately designed and detailed character creation and combat systems, and 'story-telling', plot and character-driven systems (FATE being the latter).
Whatever is to your taste. I prefer the story-telling systems because I'm not that fascinated with figuring out the intricacies of combat, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the miniatures-inspired systems.
-
Whatever is to your taste. I prefer the story-telling systems because I'm not that fascinated with figuring out the intricacies of combat, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the miniatures-inspired systems.
[soapbox]
There isn't anything wrong with 4th Ed in-and-of-itself. It is a decent tactical combat system that is nice, simple and doesn't bog down in tremendous amounts of detail compared to it's predecessor, making it a good intro system for new players. However, compared to its predecessor, it is a step in the wrong direction. I used the "World Of Dungeoncraft" moniker for a reason; with the emphasis on the combat round and the explicitly stated "all characters are equally effective in combat" principle and the lack of customization options for characters compared to its predecessor--even in just the skills department, to give one of many examples--it distinctly feels like they tried to port the feel of a CRPG or MMO over to tabletop, probably because WOW has been such an absurd success.
And I don't want to play WOW. I don't want to play WOW on a tabletop either. I want to play a game where if I have a sneaky or non-violent solution, I'm not violating the game's precepts in one or more ways. And 4th Ed is designed for primarily one thing: Combat. Everything else is a distant second.
And the real problem is, the fluff they designed for their base setting was nicely done, and I'll probably end up using some of it myself at one point; I like what they did with the tiefling and halfling races, to give one example. It's just the mechanics are a step away from an integrated Roleplaying-and-Combat-Game and have shifted the emphasis firmly onto Combat.
[/soapbox]
-
Aaaaaaaand... back to the topic of raising monsters. How is that working out, wyvern?
-
*is sheepish* Sorry for the thread-jack...
-
Well, my game only meets every other week, so there's very little news since I first posted. (And even if I'd had a game session since then, it's likely to take a fair chunk of time in-game before any of the eggs hatch...)
The one new notion that's come up is: trying to place most of the eggs into some form of stasis or suspended animation - which means they'll probably only try to raise one of the things at a time.
And speaking of thread-jacks (which, fyi, I totally don't mind), I'd have to agree that trying to ban one's SO from playing in games one runs is not a good idea. Sure, be aware that there can be issues with impartiality, but you should be fine as long as you're watching for such issues, and - more importantly - have made sure that your players know they can just tell you if they think there's anything wrong. (As a side note here: it is important both to actually be reasonably impartial, and to appear to be impartial. If someone thinks you're showing favoritism when, say, it's actually just the result of really lucky die rolls, things can go downhill just as easily as if there's actually some systemic bias.)
Same goes for GMPCs, really; they're something that can easily go wrong, sure, but as long as you're aware of the pitfalls, and your players know they can say "Hey, this NPC is hogging the spotlight, please don't do that", they can also add a lot to a game. One of my favorite GMPCs was actually from a 4e game I ran for a few sessions - the party didn't have a defender, so I built a minotaur fighter. She had an intelligence penalty, and a wisdom bonus - so she knew she wasn't that smart, and was perfectly happy to accept tactical advice from the PCs. Still, my general rule of thumb for GMPCs is that they should do their best to fade into the background.
(Incidentally, I do know one GM for whom 4e really is the perfect system - because what he actually does is run a freeform game, but likes to have a framework for combat; and as that's really all 4e provides, it works perfectly; gives him mechanics for the stuff he wants mechanics for, and doesn't give him mechanics for the stuff he'd rather run without mechanics.)
-
As far as the original thread...I'd read some books/biographers of large animal trainers (Clyde Beatty is especially readable). Large predators can be very intelligent, and very charming. And yes, they will do their best to kill you at times. But they're not evil.
They also can't truly be 'tamed' or domesticated (the terms are different).
If the creatures ultimately gain sentience, then you have an entirely different set of problems.
Important NPCs should be colourful enough to remember without taking screen time away from PCs. A greedy (but good at heart) bookseller made an impression on the PCs by letting them buy a book that had been ordered by a local coven, but hadn't ben picked up. For five years. And the owner hadn't tried to track down the coven in all that time to collect his money... Yeah, it was that kind of book...