For this Friday's open question, I thought I'd go with something a bit more meaty, namely the subject of refereeing philosophy.
As you know, in my campaign, gnomes are an "accident" in the process by which dwarves carve their own sons from living rock. According to the rules I've established to govern this process, only a critical failure (a roll of 1 on 1D20), followed by a roll of 1-2 on 1D6 creates a gnome, making them quite rare.
So, here's the question: suppose the player of a dwarf character wants his son to be a gnome, because he thinks it'd be fun to introduce such a character into the campaign. Do you forgo the rules and allow it? How about if you, as referee, think it'd a nice addition to the campaign? Do you arrange things so that a gnome comes to be or do you stick to the rules as let the dice fall where they may? Explain your reasons.
Have fun. I'm offline till tomorrow, as usual.
If the player or I thought it would add something interesting to the game, then I'd allow it. I tend to think that we play these games for fun, so as long as it isn't "game breaking" it's allowed.
ReplyDeleteI think first you need to figure out if the result of a gnome is a totally random mutation, or if the dwarves fully understand the process involved in creating a gnome. Or is the knowledge base somewhere in between?
ReplyDeleteIf gnomes are a totally random mutation, much like a rare-recessive gene, then I would stick to the 1 on a d6 result.
If it is a fully understood phenomenon, then I would allow a 1-5 on a d6, and 6 would result in a dwarf, as with any alchemical/magical/complex ritual there is a chance of undesired results.
If the knowledge of the creation of gnomes is somewhere in between, then I would keep the original 1 on a d6 chance, but allow beneficial mods (in this case negative numbers) if the character invests proper amounts of time for research and recipe substitutions to increase the chance. (ie. the character does research and discovers that it is believed that skimping on the amount of blood stone granules, and/or the addition of the rare frog-head toadstools (but only the orange ones) are believed to increase the chances of gnomes. Then if the player makes the substitution I'd allow a gnome on a role of 1-3 on a d6.) In addition, I would limit the amount of beneficial mods allowed in this manner. As an option for this sort of formula tinkering, I'd allow a chance for a random result, and/or random mutations for a critical success/fail.
I really like the idea of dwarves carving their sons. I'm considering modifying it to works along side of my elves unborn v/s generational class/caste system.
I'm all for glossing over rules in favor of interesting story, especially in terms story info like how rare something is supposed to be. In the way I run things, my PCs are the stars. Therefore, if rare and wondrous things would add to their character without setting askew the very fabric of the universe (and without being cheesy), I say go for it.
ReplyDelete"I have a gnome son" without rolling may violate a rule and, perhaps, stretch sensibility, but we're talking about a PC here, and such a thing is interesting and harmless. Not like "The Terrasque gives me pony rides" or anything like that.*
*Unless you're running a pretty out there campaign.
If the player and I think it will be cool, it will add something to the campaign AND it won't break anything -- I'd allow it without a roll.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, if a ruling has been set in stone, then I prefer not to go against it. However, in the particular case you are discussing, it doesn't look like you've answered the question of whether some dwarves might want a gnome to result, and if so whether they can direct the result in that way. Given that such a result may enrich the game, it would be, perhaps, worthwhile to rule that a dwarf can attempt to direct the child to be a gnome.
ReplyDeleteIn the broader sense of the question, I think that it is a good idea to stick to the rules of the world as you've set them out, adding specific variations as necessary to answer unanticipated questions coming up. When setting those elements of the world, it is best to consider what will be fun, of course, and to allow for the players having different interests than you do. This is all made easier in the fashion that you, James, have chosen to build your world (i.e. through play), but I don't think that it's impossible for those of us who tend to build a little or a lot more at the outset (I am an inveterate worldbuilder; I just can't help myself, it's the part of gaming that I enjoy the most - I am, however, taking some advice from you on my current game and doing a lot less than I might normally).
I think the question of whether the dwarves know how to control it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the *player* wants to introduce a gnome. The player might well want to have the dwarf's kid to be a gnome because the dwarf would be disappointed and that would be interesting to play out. The only reason I can see to roll for it would be if you were worried that the texture of the world would get all bent out of shape if the players encounter too many supposedly rare situations...but I would almost always allow this kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteWow, lots of pushovers! ;) Honestly, I think the fun part is the rarity. Sure it'd be fun to "accidentally" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)create a gnome-boy. But you know what's more fun? Actually rolling a gnome when the chances are so slim it could occur. It's those true rolls that make for exciting gameplay. And let's face it, there's nothing more seemingly "random" than genetics!
ReplyDeleteI'd say if there's a lot of interest in gnome progeny and there's not many dwarves carving kiddos, (and since this rule is homebrewed), then perhaps the rule can be amended slightly. Something like roll a 1-3 on a d20. Or keep the critical 1 and make it a 1-2 on a d4. But that's if interest is really high.
Back when I first started running games, I went with a "the rules say X, so X it shall be." approach to this kind of thing. This tended to result in me not running many games. These days, I'm more lenient, and tend to take a "yes, but..." approach where the player gets what they want but may have to give up something in return, even if that is just in-game attention from entities the players would rather avoid.
ReplyDeleteI choose rules light games because my reflex is always to say 'yes' unless I have a compelling reason to say no... I find that cultivating players this way always leads me to a chance to ultimately say "YES!!!" to something in a session, and that moment is really why I'm gaming.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the player doesn’t what a gnome son, then, as referee, I’m going to stick by the die roll. I can find other ways to introduce a gnome character if I want to.
ReplyDeleteIf the player wants a gnome son, then I’d consider letting them auto-fail rather than roll. I’m going to make sure, however, that that is what the player wants. It’s possible that it being a result of the roll is important to the player who is hoping it’ll happen.
If the player wants to create lots of gnomes, I might be more hesitant, though, since that starts to go against the whole reason for the roll. On the other hand, it might be an interesting twist.
i would let him have his gnome son. i can't see any reasson not to do it.
ReplyDeletei am willing to break most rules if that leads to more enjoyment for everyone, if i can't see any drawbacks (like in this case).
if a player wants it, the dm wants it (or at least has no problem with it), then please give me a reason why it should not happen. "the rules" won't come along and complain.
Keep it random. If the character wants a gnome so badly, he/she can kidnap one. *That* would provide some fabulous roleplaying opportunities.
ReplyDeleteThis could actually be a bigger decision than you realize, because it could impact far more than whether a gnome is created. The players may look to this decision as a precedent for whether you'll allow them to escape the effects of other random tables "if it would be more fun" to simply pick the result, so tread carefully or run the risk of being labelled a hypocrite in the future.
ReplyDeleteFor my part, I think true randomness is a big part of the game's fun. Rolling a die is good enough to determine if a character lives or dies, so it's good enough to determine whether a character has a gnome or a dwarf for off-spring . . .
Jeremy
My Clone Wars Campaign: http://jhaeman.blogspot.com
I would allow a conscious effort on the part of the character to increase the odds of creating a gnome, and introduce research opportunities (i.e., what kind of gems, etc. did other dwarves use when they created gnomes? Are there any circumstance under which more gnomes seem to be "born"?) to further increase the odds. Nothing stops him from trying multiple times, either. Essentially, I would take the player's desires and turn them into an adventure.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a particular use for a gnome child as a DM (and the player wants it as well), I might allow it to happen automatically, but in doing so I would establish a reason why this creation became a gnome (to myself, the players can figure it out during play).
I think that the players are just as much a part of creating the campaign world as the GM is. Everyone should have fun, players and GM alike. If the player wants to add something outside of the GMs campaign 'vision' the GM needs to at least be open to it, especially if the player has decent reason behind his/her addition. In most cases it will add color to the campaign sessions and more likely than not, role-playing opportunities.
ReplyDeleteKeep the charts the same as you have them, just switch Gnome for Dwarf and Dwarf for Gnome.
ReplyDeleteThus, the Gnome will result from a successful roll but a Dwarf will be an accident. (Chances for inert or knocker remain the same.)
Simple and easy.
Sure, let 'em have the gnome. That's doesn't mean the gnome works out as they want or expect him to. (Insert evil DM grin here.) Once they see the result of having their son turn out to be Mordred, they 'll think twice about asking you to set aside the rules for their sake...
ReplyDeleteAre they saying "I want a gnome son" as a player, or "I want a gnome son" as a character?
ReplyDeleteAlso, why are dwarves male, as opposed to asexual?
For everything, there is a price...
ReplyDeleteSure, I would permit it for the sake of playability. However, such an manipulation of random rolls shold be reflected in the game. Some type of "outer" influence brought this Gnome about for a reason. Fate? Destiny? dunh-Dunh-DUNH!
Or, perhaps, the Dwarf father had a momentary lapse while creating his son...let his mind wander abit, doubting his own skill, speculating or worrying what type of son he would be able to create. Maybe his dwarf son breaks into two gnomes...one the player character...the other...darker perhaps? Or perhaps an abomination of sorts? Father tossed the abomination down a chasm never expecting it to survive...or come back!
Never be afraid to give the players what they think they want. Make them afraid they might get EXACTLY what they ask for...and more...
Ciao!
GW
Rather than allowing the Dwarf to create a gnome without a die roll, I would tell the player to begin delving into hidden stores of dwarven knowledge--looking back to how the first dwarves were created--to figure out why gnomes occur. I'd make creating a gnome son an adventure rather than a throw away. More fun for everyone and doesn't go against the previous ruling.
ReplyDeleteI say it depends the cultural attitudes the
ReplyDeletedwarf has shown in the past. If they have been a traditionalist then by definition a gnome is an aberation and should only occur when one is rolled, but if the dwarf has flagged up that they have rejected the dwarfish norms then I'd probably let them, but have them roll and on a mishap it is a dwarf instead.
See, this is the kind of request that I think you could turn into a lot of fun. Instead of saying "no you have to roll for it" I'd let the dwarf PC research the subject (at cost) and then find out something like: gnomes come from dwarves when the gems have a specific, hard-to-find kind of flaw. Then of course start with the rumors of where such a gem could be found. I think "yes but" is the one answer that always gets you good adventure hooks.
ReplyDeleteWait, wait, wait, wait.
ReplyDeleteYour open friday topic is about your own (and lets be honest, crazy and disturbing) dwarf and gnome multiplication rules?
Wow.
The fact that people are getting into it = wow +1.
Also the entire topic is frankly rediculous because we all know that gnomes mature from larva hatched from eggs implanted in the chest cavities of player characters.
And halflings are born when they burrow up from Hell.
These days, the way I look at something like this is what is the purpose of having the random table in the whole context of the game.
ReplyDeleteReally, the question is: "When do we roll dice?" Backed up by: "Why do we roll dice?"
In D&D, we often have tables or procedures that use randomness to pick things where the purpose of the randomness is to help spark creativity. If we feel like we have a creative idea without using randomness, then we should dispense with the rolls.
Other times in D&D, randomness is used to create tension in the game. In those situations, we should always try to roll the dice and abide by them, otherwise we are negating the tension created.
Of course the problem with using random rolls to create tension is sometimes the system isn't reliable. For example, a string of bad rolls in combat may actually damage tension by making the conflict too one sided.
Another purpose of tables and probabilities is to help inform the setting. The probability of a gnome resulting from a dwarf creating a son informs us that gnomes are very rare, and the result of something going wrong. This reinforces the description.
Given that, if the GM and players want to explore what happens when this rare event occurs, then by all means skip the roll.
In then end, consider when and why dice are rolled in your game and make an informed decision.
Frank
Wayne, you also have to consider, does the character want to create a gnome, or does the player want to explore how the character will react to trying to create a son and getting a gnome instead.
ReplyDeleteIn the first case, sure, the character should have to do research, and probably go adventuring to find something to influence the probability, or find someone who has some critical knowledge.
In the second case, if everyone agrees that would be something fun to explore, just let the situation happen. Pretend the critical failure occurred and the 1 in 6 probability happened.
Frank
My general rule of thumb is that the dice trump my story ideas, and if the players come up with an even better story idea, that trumps the dice.
ReplyDeleteI am actually very comfortable with fudging rules in order to make the game more fun because I like to get surprised. Like kelvingreen, if the players surprise me, entertain me, or other wise come up with a great idea, I'll overlook the dice; however, it must follow some kind of in-game logic. For example, in the case of making a gnome in Dwimmermount, I'd insist on a die roll. Since gnomes are very rare, I am guessing that to try and create them would have a much greater chance of a negative outcome or dwarves would be making gnomes all the time. Thus, a player could try, but would need to face the negative consequences of such an endeavor. This allows a player to be free and do what they want while also following the in-game logic of the Dwimmermount campaign.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of The_Myth's suggestion, but I'd also add a chance of "Oh crap, what did I just create?!?"
ReplyDeletefor me this is a very easy no way, no way.
ReplyDeletethis reminds me of how my friends and I used to laugh at the Monster Manual for telling us so many monsters were "rare" or "very rare"-- and yet we'd met up with a lot more spectres than wild cattle. it is a good trick in story-telling to create the sense that something singular is happening, but when you do it by fudging die rolls on things like this, the strings show and it doesn't work for me.
On this particular example, perhaps I'm overly identifying with the dwarven father-- sure you will love your son happens to be a gnome, but can anyone honestly say he *wants* that? just because he thinks it would be "fun"?
ravenconspiracy said...
ReplyDeleteAlso the entire topic is frankly rediculous because we all know that gnomes mature from larva hatched from eggs implanted in the chest cavities of player characters.
No, no. That's how Killer-Rabbits(tm) are born.
And halflings are born when they burrow up from Hell.
Ok, this IS true.
Hmm, Hellborn Halflings...
Brian said...
On this particular example, perhaps I'm overly identifying with the dwarven father-- sure you will love your son happens to be a gnome, but can anyone honestly say he *wants* that? just because he thinks it would be "fun"?
I think the player would think it is fun. For the NPC/PC Father, it should be unexpected (i.e., disappointment). Sure, they love their offspring. That's why they try to protect them. But there could still be a stigmata attached. But that's a matter for role-play.
I'd do it once to see what happens. Twice to see if I liked it. Three times just to be sure. ;)
Now, WWJD? (That's James, of course)
Ciao!
GW
Yes.
ReplyDeleteYou've already established the fact that gnomes come from dwarves, so it's not breaking your world rules at all.
And it's not fudging the roll if you don't roll.
If you want to look at it another way, 1.67% of dwarf births are gnomes. How many dwarves are there? How many times do they try to give birth over their long lives? Compare that to the gnomish die-off, and you get the size of the gnomish community, which hopefully will be considerable.
The reason I'd allow it because it would present an interesting story and motivation for the character. "The failed" birth would explore the nature of gnomes and dwarves further, adding more detail to the picture of them in the world. The player is telling you that he wants to explore this "dungeon," which will have it's own monsters and pitfalls.
Your world will be richer for it as you discover and build new webs of relationships. The interaction of the player's character with his offspring will determine how much of the greater dwarven community copes with their own failures, and how their failures come to term with them.
[And through the correct choice of words, such as "failure," you can shape the direction of how you want the explorations to trend.]
In a mechanical sense, the advantage here is that the player wants to explore a problematic relationship. There is an automatic downside to this relationship, which gives plenty of opportunities for roleplaying and interaction. A player insisting on a son would have to roll and take the risk of producing a gnome.*
In return for accepting a negative consequence the player gets to choose the roll. It's a fair trade.
[Similarly I'd allow a player king of a patriarchal kingdom to only have daughters because of the opportunities involved. Do the princesses have suitors hoping to gain the kingdom? Does the King set quests? Does one of the daughters assume a male persona and take the throne? Is the king Lear?]
I love it when the players and actions describe the world for me, and it gives them a stake in building the world (which is why some GMs don't like it). They discover bits and pieces of the world that I have never realised were there before.
For example a certain paranoid player, who was always looking for ambushes when travelling through hills, so the Am Bush was invented. They had tasy and invigorating seeds that were chewed and then spat out on the side of the road. So the well-drained hills on the side of the road became covered in Am Bushes.
[* The fun in random encounter tables isn't the randomness. It's fitting the results of this randomness into the campaign. Why do you encounter this merchant caravan here? Where is it headed. Why is it carrying furs? And out of this your world grows.]
“...run the risk of being labelled a hypocrite in the future.”
ReplyDeleteBah! I don’t mind being called a hypocrit. We’re all hypocrites.
More seriously, though, referees have to let players understand that nobody needs to feel bound by a (in retrospect) bad precedent. Most players can figure that out themselves, though. We all want our referees to make better decisions and learn from their mistakes. We don’t want referees who slow the game down or make too conservative judgements out of fear of living with a mistake that gets enshired in precedence.
all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wants his son to be a female tiefling?
ReplyDelete@ Brian: all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wants his son to be a female tiefling?
ReplyDeleteThat's not the question that was being asked. It is, instead, the related question as to whether players should have a hand in establishing totally new facts about the world.
And the answer to that, like most social media, comes down to trust. Do you trust the players to be able to do so? To fit in with the world?
If the answers to this are "yes," then it can be very rewarding to have them do so, usually in close cooperation with yourself.
However in most cases it isn't so much an overt act of creation such as Athena springing whole from the head of Zeus. Rather it generally as a result of continued play and exploring relationships.
Most of my races in my fantasy campaign started out as fairly standard [The exception being orcs, which had already had a history with "me" by being cheap mercenary troops in another campaign I was playing in. This resulted in my further developing the nature of orcs (which I did in a very un-Tolkeinlike direction). Are they still orcs? Game mechanically they are. In play, not so much.]
But the people that played them, and interacted with them slowly developed them through the process of these interactions. Elves became creatures of pure chaos, so malleable that they didn't seem to have a true form. Then the player with an elf, who had previously established he was an exile, made the suggestion that what if all elves were actually little more than an illusion projected by a faerie mound, which was really the elf. And that some of the illusions, especially those created for a specific task (in his case it appears to be assassination), were made too well and became independant. [Incidentally half-elves were humans who had dwelt too long in a faerie mound. Elves never breed.]
There were almost no dwarves played in my game, which meant that the dwarves did not have a great deal of interaction with the campaign. SO why were they so secretive and stand-offish. It later conspired through play that they were the slaves of goblins (the hidden in plain sight bad guys). Even later, it was discovered that goblins and dwarves, despite their distinctive appearance, were actually the same race that had split during historic times. Not surprising, since the goblins were noted alchemists and eugenicists, particularly when it came to making monsters. I had no idea that this would be the case. It was all revealed through play and necessity.
Whilst orcs and humans were closely related species (think sapiens vs neanderthals) there were no half-orcs. That's because orcs were more respectable* in my game, so could appear as characters in their own right. Their principle export was mercenary soldiers or barbarian hordes, depending on the events of the time, and the strength of human civilization. Their inability to deal with a lot of abstract thought (including magic) meant that they were being pushed into less habitable areas by the expanding humans. The benefit was they were fecund and tough. Their mortality was hopeless.
The end result is that an organic world grows up around your campaign, not so much from decisions you make, but as a natural outgrowth of the campaign history. That is a true living campaign.
So the question I have to ask you in return is: "why do you think this is a good idea? Convince me!"
[* Which is not the same as saying they were actually respectable through most of history. But they tended to have fun (and leave a lot of property damage in their wake ... and have very fast horses).]
I think the rule of improv applies here. Don't say "no", say "yes, and..."
ReplyDeleteI've had sessions where I followed the will of the dice unerringly and the results sucked. Randomization is just a way of asking the questions you say "yes, and..." to if you don't have any questions of your own in mind.
I've heard it said the proper way to flip a coin is to flip it and then decide whether you're happy or disappointed in the result.
I'd agree with other posters here. Let 'em have the gnome, but have some strings (complete with plot hooks) attached.
The "Rule of Cool" should always apply.
That's not the question that was being asked. It is, instead, the related question as to whether players should have a hand in establishing totally new facts about the world.
ReplyDeleteIf you're running an RPG, the answer to this question better be yes. Because players introduce facts all the time...
Frank
In the hypothetical you've given, I'd be inclined to grant the player his wish, assuming it would create more fun in the game and that the player was not the type to abuse the situation. Also, this kind of rules-variance is appealing because it makes the player more invested in the setting.
ReplyDelete+1 to what Anthony said.
ReplyDeleteIf it adds to the fun, go for it.
ReplyDeleteIf you want your world to grow in new & exciting ways, allow the players' the opportunity. You'll both be challenged.
ReplyDeleteIf you only want your world to grow as you see fit to allow it, with all its fine details, then write a novel or two. You won't need anyone's input.
Ciao!
GW
This is a sticky one. If you're going to dismiss the Table, so your player can have his gnome, what about this scenario?
ReplyDeleteWhat if he simply, wants a Dwarven son? Really, really wants one. Would you ditch the Table in that instance, to make sure he gets what he wants? If he asked you to? Ignoring the Table, is ignoring the Table.
Your rules have options, allowing the player to increase his chances of having a True Dwarven offspring. If the Character wants a Gnome, you could allow him to research the matter and take steps to increase that probability.
If I'm going to make the rules in the first place and I'm playing D&D, I'm not going to throw them overboard, so long as they work and I feel there's a valid reason for them. I wouldn't ditch the Table, unless I was willing to ditch it completely.
Which may be a topic worth discussing. Are those sort of rules necessary, or even desirable? We DM's tend to like these little situational tables. We certainly like making them. Judging from the responses, here, many have no problem discarding them. Are they unimportant, or even detrimental to RPing?
P.S. I would give the Player what he wanted. If he's that into the nuances of the campaign and this would help him "Imagine the Hell out of it," then definitely, yes. A part of me doesn't like it, though. :)
ReplyDeleteI was all set to answer one way, but then I read Ian's comment: "I'd make creating a gnome son an adventure rather than a throw away."
ReplyDeleteDamn if he isn't dead on target. Well done sir!
In general, we play the game to have fun, as players and DMs. I prefer to give my players reasonable things that they want, than to be a hard case about keeping my little version of Oz/Narnia/Nehwon "consistent." Years hence, my players might not even remember some inconsistency between how I originally presented the gnomish race and what gnomes eventually became through play. They will remember going to rob the library of a dragon-lich (who was way too powerful for them to face head-on, thus a resort to burglary) and having to sacrifce a beloved trinket to the King of the Earth-Elementals just to get the information necessary to create the PC's gnome-son.
That doesn't make me a pushover. That makes me a good GM.
What if he simply, wants a Dwarven son? Really, really wants one. Would you ditch the Table in that instance, to make sure he gets what he wants?
ReplyDeleteHmm. But a Dwarven son is a successful result on the table. A gnome is a failed result. If a player said, "I really want to hit this monster," you'd require him to roll. But if he said, "I want my fighter to take a swing at this monster and miss by a mile," would you tell him that he has to roll in order to fail?
"Which may be a topic worth discussing. Are those sort of rules necessary, or even desirable? We DM's tend to like these little situational tables. We certainly like making them. Judging from the responses, here, many have no problem discarding them. Are they unimportant, or even detrimental to RPing?
ReplyDeleteTables are like any other rule: they're useful when well done, but you should forego them when doing so makes the game better.
As for this specific case, I always allow players to make their characters fail. I don't see making a gnome son as any different from making a character walk blindly into a trap or break up with his one true love.
@ Wade - Not the same thing at all. It would be more like "I want my fighter to swing and miss by a mile, accidently throwing his sword across the room, where it will, by dumb luck, spear the Minotaur right between the eyes."
ReplyDelete@ Russell - See above. Not the way I read Mr. Maliszewski's intent at all. If it was that simple, there wouldn't be a reason to ask the question.
Y'know, I think I would be tempted to roll on the failure table anyway.
ReplyDeleteThere's a 1 in 3 chance of it coming up a gnome.
And if it came up a knocker, wouldn't it be interesting for the player to try to "civilize" his son of his more acquisitive and malevolent tendencies? Might make for some interesting roleplaying.
@Russell: I took the question as the player wants to bring in a Gnome character. That is one reason why I would disregard the table, with the caveat of adding some condition to it as I mentioned previously. If the player was just wanting a Gnome NPC to follow him around and do his bidding, then he would have to take his chances with the table.
ReplyDelete"So, Glorin, how many of your dwarf sons will be joining us today? 3 or 4? Still hoping for a Gnome, eh?"
Ciao!
GW
I let my players invent any kind of a biography for their character that they want. I have the final word in altering the final details to make sure that they fit with the game's setting. Players get the full in-game benefit of their character background, if they can think to invoke them in a game, but the DM also provids the complications for the game. Thus, if the PC is the son of a wealthy merchant, he gets the beenfit of staying int he big house and being able to afford plate mail armor and any other thing that his doting parents can reasonably afford, however, being an wealthy heir, his rival siblings might try to poison him, his dad's partner can try to set him up to become an outlaw so as to disinherit him, one of the evil henchmens of te vile orcs might actually be a scion of a respected noble family and might bring the lawsuit agaisnt the PC's dear old dad to get recompense for damages that the PC has so callously wrought, and beiong of noble blood, he just might get the ruling in his favor...
ReplyDeleteI give players everything and anything they ask for. It makes for interesting and arresting gaming with players often ending up in the hot seat.