I looked at a playthrough right now. It actually looks like something I'm trying to achieve. Maybe not so complicated, but still in the same direction. Thanks!
I really like this. The two paths are both interesting in thair own right and I would love to see them farther. Also love the trolls of your world so far, they seem interesting.
So, the idea I had is that the Hunters task the party with destroying the aforementioned scepter. Players good with certain skills like history or artifacts might recall or discern that the scepter is actually a conduit which conjures a giant sword of light. However, for one reason or another, each time the scepter is used, it has a chance of cracking apart from the power thrumming through it, severely harming the one wielding it when it does so. Possible reasons for this are: The scepter is meant to be wielded by beings who no longer exist whose biology circumvented this issue. The scepter was made by an unwilling artificer who was being kept prisoner, and so it was made faulty on purpose. The scepter was designed to breakdown and have lethal consequences for overuse to prevent abusing it’s power. In this scenario, it’s safe to use but only once every 17 days, any sooner and it’s a gamble. This would give a narrative explanation for the scepter’s current broken state when the party stumble across it. As for the reason why the Hunters want it destroyed? Were word of such an artifact to get out, who knows who or what might claim such a power. As for why they don’t want it for themselves, that’s easy. They already have one. If the party kept the scepter and repaired it, a few things could happen when running into the Hunters. If (A) They are just carrying it in plain sight, the Hunters initially ask if they had trouble destroying the scepter, before asking the party to hand over the scepter so it can be destroyed. Que some social rolls and roleplay to see if they hand it over or get to keep it. Depending on how that goes, the Hunters offer to camp together for the night, or could turn hostile things go awry. If (B) They have it hidden, the Hunters simply ask how their job is going, and offer to camp together for the night. With either of those resolved, at this point, the storyteller reveals to the players that they recognize one of the Hunters carrying a scepter nearly identical to the one they themselves possess. With some social rolls and roleplay, they might learn that it controls the giant sword of light, and that the Hunter carrying it is ready to lay her life down since it is known that wielder’s of the scepters have a good chance of dying when wielding it.
From here, the party can decide whether to steal the scepter or scepters to side with the Trolls, or to join the Hunters and help fight alongside them while slaying the Trolls. Of course, I could easily see players who want to have peace between the Trolls and Hunters, attempting to argue both sides down just before the fight. Depending on who the players met first and how dialogue has already occurred, the sides would ultimately shake out like this. The Trolls argue: “Many of your kind kill ours on sight, not even for food but simply because we are not of your kind. Yet we did not retaliate. Maybe we should have. Maybe then the food of the land would not have grown scarce. We do not understand how your kind kills every deer, picks every berry bush barren, and yet your people never grow fat, are never sated. We took our share to survive, as is our right, and nothing more. Let them pretend we are mindless, brutish monsters, if that helps them sleep after murdering those few in the forest who had once offered them safety.” While the Hunters give this argument: “They have trampled carelessly across the land, destroying farms, roads, bridges, the very infrastructure of what allows our people here and far to not starve in the winter. I’m sorry, but that level of casual disregard for the lives outside their own isn’t something I’m keen on protecting. What you’re suggesting would risk the lives of hundreds of people, and you have no right to do that. They’ll claim some need behind their actions, because those bridges were such a threat to their lives. Don’t fall for their lies. They’re like any other monster in Trollskog, using trickery to turn us against one another.”
While just an example, I think the ticket is to have both arguments have merits and flaws, while also having a fundamental point that anyone could empathize with. In this case, it’s a tale as old as time: food resources are growing thin, so factions in need are attacking one another. There’s more nuance with on top, but that is a foundation where either side could be seen as justified in their actions by most people. In any case, I think that peace would be too optimal a route if obtainable, and for that reason would make the two factions ultimately hostile regardless of player action. Siding with either faction could more or less grant the same rewards with different narrative beats. Some equipment as thanks for their effort, perhaps gaining standing with one faction (Forest Dwellers vs Hunters) and losing standing with the other, and exp or character progression. Anyways, those were the ideas I had, I know they're not full proof but I hope they get the brain juices flowing 😊
Holy f**k. That's the most awesome thing I've read😎 this is brilliant! I can just imagine now if the players choose to fight the hunters, you suddenly have two gigantic light swords in the air and a troll in the mix. It's going to be chaotic and epic. And the arguments... I had the plan to come up with arguments for both sides, but you've just written everything down for me already. Thanks! I think that it may have been very cool if the scepter was actually made by a troll. Maybe a troll who was captured and forces to make a weapon against them. That's also why it's unstable. I have a lot of materials and ideas now! Thanks! Now I have to figure out how to structure it into a book.
I like that you do now more often videos again, guess you settled in well? And I also like that you do not treat trolls as just something bad, I hate that idea of inherently evil species that dominate too much of the fantasy space.
Thank you! It's a little bit hectic, but working on RPGs still needs to be prioritized if I want it to go somewhere 😅 and yes, I also dislike that things are inherently evil. Something can be programmed to do something which ruins something for someone else, the same way mold is "programmed" to expand through wet houses. But if the creature is somewhat sentient, it has a more of its own
![PbtA vs OSR - Is there something in between? - Making a TTRPG From Scratch [Episode 41]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O_Ki7gzQulg/mqdefault.jpg)
![PbtA vs OSR - Is there something in between? - Making a TTRPG From Scratch [Episode 41]](/img/tr.png)
![Yilebókk - How to Worldbuild Traditions - Making a TTRPG From Scratch [Episode 42]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JUaoFOAQwvM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Encounter Engine - Making a TTRPG From Scratch [Episode 43]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8cTbrmHiQr0/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Licenses Work (I hope) - Making a TTRPG From Scratch [Episode 44]](/img/1.gif)
The Yawhg has an epilogue feature kinda similar to how you described
I looked at a playthrough right now. It actually looks like something I'm trying to achieve. Maybe not so complicated, but still in the same direction. Thanks!
I really like this. The two paths are both interesting in thair own right and I would love to see them farther. Also love the trolls of your world so far, they seem interesting.
Thank you! I think I'll try to expand on these ideas further in the next episode. Maybe I'll try to figure out what sort of mechanics that can be used
So, the idea I had is that the Hunters task the party with destroying the aforementioned scepter. Players good with certain skills like history or artifacts might recall or discern that the scepter is actually a conduit which conjures a giant sword of light. However, for one reason or another, each time the scepter is used, it has a chance of cracking apart from the power thrumming through it, severely harming the one wielding it when it does so.
Possible reasons for this are:
The scepter is meant to be wielded by beings who no longer exist whose biology circumvented this issue.
The scepter was made by an unwilling artificer who was being kept prisoner, and so it was made faulty on purpose.
The scepter was designed to breakdown and have lethal consequences for overuse to prevent abusing it’s power. In this scenario, it’s safe to use but only once every 17 days, any sooner and it’s a gamble.
This would give a narrative explanation for the scepter’s current broken state when the party stumble across it. As for the reason why the Hunters want it destroyed? Were word of such an artifact to get out, who knows who or what might claim such a power. As for why they don’t want it for themselves, that’s easy. They already have one.
If the party kept the scepter and repaired it, a few things could happen when running into the Hunters.
If (A) They are just carrying it in plain sight, the Hunters initially ask if they had trouble destroying the scepter, before asking the party to hand over the scepter so it can be destroyed. Que some social rolls and roleplay to see if they hand it over or get to keep it. Depending on how that goes, the Hunters offer to camp together for the night, or could turn hostile things go awry.
If (B) They have it hidden, the Hunters simply ask how their job is going, and offer to camp together for the night.
With either of those resolved, at this point, the storyteller reveals to the players that they recognize one of the Hunters carrying a scepter nearly identical to the one they themselves possess. With some social rolls and roleplay, they might learn that it controls the giant sword of light, and that the Hunter carrying it is ready to lay her life down since it is known that wielder’s of the scepters have a good chance of dying when wielding it.
From here, the party can decide whether to steal the scepter or scepters to side with the Trolls, or to join the Hunters and help fight alongside them while slaying the Trolls. Of course, I could easily see players who want to have peace between the Trolls and Hunters, attempting to argue both sides down just before the fight.
Depending on who the players met first and how dialogue has already occurred, the sides would ultimately shake out like this.
The Trolls argue:
“Many of your kind kill ours on sight, not even for food but simply because we are not of your kind. Yet we did not retaliate. Maybe we should have. Maybe then the food of the land would not have grown scarce. We do not understand how your kind kills every deer, picks every berry bush barren, and yet your people never grow fat, are never sated. We took our share to survive, as is our right, and nothing more. Let them pretend we are mindless, brutish monsters, if that helps them sleep after murdering those few in the forest who had once offered them safety.”
While the Hunters give this argument:
“They have trampled carelessly across the land, destroying farms, roads, bridges, the very infrastructure of what allows our people here and far to not starve in the winter. I’m sorry, but that level of casual disregard for the lives outside their own isn’t something I’m keen on protecting. What you’re suggesting would risk the lives of hundreds of people, and you have no right to do that. They’ll claim some need behind their actions, because those bridges were such a threat to their lives. Don’t fall for their lies. They’re like any other monster in Trollskog, using trickery to turn us against one another.”
While just an example, I think the ticket is to have both arguments have merits and flaws, while also having a fundamental point that anyone could empathize with. In this case, it’s a tale as old as time: food resources are growing thin, so factions in need are attacking one another. There’s more nuance with on top, but that is a foundation where either side could be seen as justified in their actions by most people.
In any case, I think that peace would be too optimal a route if obtainable, and for that reason would make the two factions ultimately hostile regardless of player action. Siding with either faction could more or less grant the same rewards with different narrative beats. Some equipment as thanks for their effort, perhaps gaining standing with one faction (Forest Dwellers vs Hunters) and losing standing with the other, and exp or character progression.
Anyways, those were the ideas I had, I know they're not full proof but I hope they get the brain juices flowing 😊
Holy f**k. That's the most awesome thing I've read😎 this is brilliant!
I can just imagine now if the players choose to fight the hunters, you suddenly have two gigantic light swords in the air and a troll in the mix. It's going to be chaotic and epic.
And the arguments... I had the plan to come up with arguments for both sides, but you've just written everything down for me already. Thanks!
I think that it may have been very cool if the scepter was actually made by a troll. Maybe a troll who was captured and forces to make a weapon against them. That's also why it's unstable.
I have a lot of materials and ideas now! Thanks! Now I have to figure out how to structure it into a book.
@@simplywyvern I'm glad you liked it! It was fun to write up 😁
Is it coffee or tea? It better be the right answer: fair trade coffee
Bad news, it's hot chocolate 😎
I like that you do now more often videos again, guess you settled in well? And I also like that you do not treat trolls as just something bad, I hate that idea of inherently evil species that dominate too much of the fantasy space.
Thank you! It's a little bit hectic, but working on RPGs still needs to be prioritized if I want it to go somewhere 😅 and yes, I also dislike that things are inherently evil. Something can be programmed to do something which ruins something for someone else, the same way mold is "programmed" to expand through wet houses. But if the creature is somewhat sentient, it has a more of its own