Fria Ligans forum

Should I use the Events At The Stronghold (GMG, page 12), or a modified version, for villages, castle and dungeon not controlled by the PCs?

Some background: Our new group of wandering rogues and rascals found the village of “Towergate” (rolled up using the Village tables, GMG pages 168 to 172), quickly came to dislike the “brutal” “mayor” and want to help the abused and fearful village serfs, but are outnumbered by the demon worshipping cultists controlling Towergate: the village's claim to fame is worshipping demons.

As the players been reading the Gamemaster's Guide a slight bit of metagaming went on: with questions about (a) do the mayor and cohorts have any known enemies we can use? And, (b), could we wait it out until “Orcs Attack” or “Monster Attacks” or another event occurs which we can use as a distraction?

Given some the the events listed for the villages in the GMG and Raven's Purge this does not seem to be an unreasonable strategy. Having events happen at villages, castle, etc. also makes for a more dynamic setting.

Has anyone had something similar happen? And are there any applicable resources I should be looking at?

Nah, do not encourage such meta gaming. For NPC towns I would let factions attack them, only if they feel like it, and if the PCs have not done enough for it not to happen. Like if the PCs killes Rust Brothers in a village, and just leave, the Rust Brothers would take the place over a few months later. And after a few months of not interacting with Koracia after the PCs found it, the Rust Brothers managed to find that too, and burned it down (an event and some clues they did not pick up on). So just keep the NPC attacks on NPC towns, logical, and not completely random?

If the PCs wants someone to attack it, they would instead need to actively plot, spread rumors, make alliances, etc. Role play.

Well ONCE my PCs where angry that some builders where building their own settlement not far from their settlement "Vralhalla", later on they found a manticore family (2 adults and like 4 smaller ones) just outside their village (from an event), and just sneaked away. So after a like a month the manticores wiped the village out. So then the PCs actually got what they wanted, by doing nothing.

There probably is a reason why Towergate isn't invaded by Orcs. Perhaps they did but where repelled by demons and are now afraid? Or perhaps they have some unseen contract going, involving favors someone on both sides gains from?

Finally.. I must say that the "event at Stronghold" is the most poorly written rule in the game. You are supposed to roll 1d6 per highest reputation in the party, pick the highest number, and that will very very soon become a 5 or 6. Like even if you start with an old PC and haven't done anything you start by rolling 2d6. So you will tend to end up with a 5 or 6 more or less always. So they early events will not appear and the last 6-12 events will just repeat. I wrote alternative rules for Stronghold events in Reforged Power (googlable), that instead have you roll reputation of the settlement (no the PCs), and have every success add a +10 modifier to the final roll starting at -10, (so one reputation success: +0, two: +10, three +20, etc). And roll one less reputation dice per unit of soldiers the city has (less likely someone would thieve or attack a low reputation area with a giant army, when there are better/easier pickings). And then the Stronghold events will be better spread out (Reforged Power also adds a lot more Stronghold events, so that you do not have to repeat them).

You could even use the Nemesis event of rolling 71+ introduced in those rules, to have a faction attack another faction. Like you don't always need to target the PCs and their settlements, you could have their enemies attack their allies too, and just have them fall. To build tension.

Thank you JohanR. So in our latest and, unfortunately, last session for a while we discussed what we are intending to do with FbL sandbox, how multi-GM play could work and what rule variants and such-like we wanted to try out. So...

Nah, do not encourage such meta gaming.

...and...

If the PCs wants someone to attack it, they would instead need to actively plot, spread rumors, make alliances, etc. Role play.

Yes to both. The meta-gaming speculation was a result of everyone consuming the GMG and was along the lines of "so this is how the world works and if our PCs know this, what can we do?" In actual play this resulted as suggested: they are now travelling and spreading rumours about “Towergate” which they are hoping will “attract greedy stares,” as per GMG page 7. They are also actively seeking information about the demon cult in the hope of sniffing out any weaknesses, etc.: knowledge is power and time in research is never wasted.

On the Principles of the Game, GMG pages 6 to 8, we think that if things are too relentless (“Never allow the adventures to feel content for more than a second” and constantly facing attempts to trick or rob the PCs of their possessions) this makes for a very single note/texture to the game. The PCs should experience a variety of events and circumstances, so that when bad things happen the contrast with good stuff makes it more impactful.

What we don't want is to end up with the permanently armed, treat everything as hostile and trying to be prepared for anything style of play which we experienced at one table in AD&D. When even in a safe city and guesting at the Duke's palace we (the PCs) would need to set magical wards and sleep in watches. After finally getting a powerful magic item the PCs would wake up and find it has been stolen in the night – happened three time. Where every relative, acquaintance or friend would get kidnapped, murdered or worse. Where every voyage ended in a ship-wreck and every caravan would be attacked (probably twice). In a world where earthquakes, landslides and extreme weather was the norm. Above all else it got boring.

The players are meant to be able to complete a campaign and make their mark on the world, so no, I would not encourage every magical item to be stolen, etc. Stealing treasure just gives a bad feeling around the table. Just like stealing XP. Like maybe if the treasure weren't earned, it is a bit more OK. And if something needs to be stolen, a better reward must be around the corner. Players are driven by "do something --> get rewarded" not "do something --> stay where you are".

I would go with things like: "Oh, you found that magical hammer, note that X want it too." If the do not comply, they gain an enemy, if they comply they might gain an ally (might be needed if you play Raven's Purge, as the Vond assault will go bad without allies) - but lose out on powerful items.

And do not keep factions black and white. They are all grey. Like they all add benefits and drawbacks. Choices should feel hard. But their choices makes what the world becomes. I don't think any faction was pure good or evil. The Raven sisters where the closest to good. But even a "good" sect could be bad for the PCs. Like "do you need all your wealth?" "Why don't you help everyone?" "Maybe your workers should work less for the same pay? And then they can spend the reminder of the time in prayer?" "And you will fund that nice expensive temple for us right?"

Like in the end of the campaign, my characters found out that a target they where to take out wasn't evil, so they didn't take it out, even though they where told that they had to do it, or things would "go bad". Well, they didn't, and that character was upset when the PCs told them that they had been a target, so the PCs self fulfilled that "prophecy", as the character then angrily turned their part of the army away (as another ally in the battle wanted them dead), and they lost several hundred warriors during a decisive battle.