The caravan was a source of military supplies for the kingdom they were in. It was vital that it reached its destination unhindered so that the kingdom could bolster its military presence in a few key positions that the rival kingdom's spies were watching, sending the message that the kingdom was strong enough to repel any attempts at invasion. Delays would have changed the spies' reports, an possibly prompted the neighboring rival kingdom and its allies to attack.
All of the players but the sorcerer are from the first kingdom, which is five times larger and stronger than the second but has no allies, and is suffering internal strife due to rapid expansion and is having trouble securing all of its borders from tribal raids.
The incentive was only present for the sorcerer's player. I originally intended each of the side quests as personal things for the players that they could try to get the party in on if they so desired.
@NautArch I see that now. It wasn't something that I gave much thought to at the time, though I certainly didn't see it as ripping the party apart. I'll have to be much more careful choosing tasks for the group in the future. Again, it really was only intended for one of the players' motives.
There's definitely more than one way around things. I prepared some more stuff in case they didn't go after the caravan, which I predicted, seeing as some were opposed to it.
So far, it sounds like a structure where the eventual end goal is the same (restore magic's place in society) but the motives are different (different loyalties and/or moralities), which can work for some groups, although it's much harder to manage and steer away from PvP
@Viishnahn WHen these types of things come up, let the consequences of NOT doing it be known. There may be a 'lesser evil' choice that the other players need to make at times.
Unlike, for example: Paul the Paladin wants to challenge the evil king because he opposes tyranny and wants to restore the rights of the people. Nigel the necromancer wants to challenge the evil king so he can take over the kingdom and establish totalitarian rule. Rafael the rogue wants to steal the kingdom's treasury for himself. They all want to challenge the king. Does that mean they have consistent motives? No.
The first four were from kingdom A. The sorcerer was from kingdom B. The sorcerer was part of an organization from kingdom B that was trying to subvert the government of kingdom A.
Source: I have experience making this mistake. I had one PC secretly and indirectly working against the other PCs, because I thought the intrigue would result in interesting roleplay and character development. Instead, it resulted in derailment and mistrust and the game fell apart.
@MikeQ That's the usual result. What other players perceive when only one other player and the DM 'have a secret' is a breach of trust and favoritism in most cases.
Since then, I have a new standard: In session 0 (or even before that, in the campaign premise descriptions via email or chat), I establish that all PCs begin on the same team with an explicit initial goal. I suggest this route for new DMs, and for experienced DMs with players new to tabletop RPGs.
@Viishnahn With all of them from Kingdom A, this likely would not have happened. Kingdom B factor was the "too much structural friction" that is more author writing story stuff and less role playing game stuff
@NautArch Oh I'm not too worried about picking back up and continuing, but I've got other problems now. The two players that quit owned the apartment where we met to play. We're all college students, and the rest of us are either living at home or living with roommates. I have no idea where I can even set up the game now.
@MikeQ No, the first one is a good friend that couldn't handle the time spent over the weekend with so many people (super introvert), so needed to take a break (potentially not permanent). The other was his brother, who didn't have much investment in the game without his brother.
@NautArch I did state near the end of "The Problem" section that both the wizard players quit.
@Viishnahn Question to ask yourself as DM: what common purpose does an agent from Kingdom B have with 4 people from Kingdom A that makes sorcerer want to adventure with them, when that sorcerer's people seek the demise of Kingdom A? Without a common purpose, why is this even a party?
See my point on the basic structure of the game, or it's formal conceit.
@KorvinStarmast Also worth mentioning is that while this structure may work in writing a book or movie or game, where the author controls all characters and the narrative, it does not translate well to tabletop RPGs where other people control the protagonists (player characters)
@Viishnahn AH, my bad. Is it worth talking to the primary player who quit (not the brother) about what your intentions really were and howyou're fixing it?
@MikeQ I hadn't thought of empty classrooms. It makes my head hurt to try to think about scheduling my small group with the school for one of the larger conference rooms. I might look into that. I try to run music for my group, and we (like all young adult males) get loud sometimes, so I didn't want to try for a public place or area.
@Viishnahn Obviously it depends on your school, but my university had project rooms in libraries and in particular in my specific departments building available for booking.
@KorvinStarmast @Viishnahn mentioned they're a writer, so I figured it was kinda relevant. Some elements work very well in a story narrative (Pablo was working for the enemy the whole time! Dramatic reveal, a monologue or two, room for character development, etc. He comes back later, double-crossing his masters.) but don't translate when the protagonists think for themselves (Pablo reveals his allegiance, the other characters instantly murder him and take his stuff).
@Viishnahn It may be useful to think of it this way: Writing a campaign is like writing a book, except you crowdsource all of the protagonists' actions to other authors who don't understand the lore as much as you do. Never expect them to behave a certain way or make a specific decision. At best, you can control their incentives. If you try to box them in too much, they find ways to fight back, or they quit.
Well, you know what they say about hindsight. Enjoy talking about Finland and birds. Thanks for all your feedback everyone; I believe a discussion about the future of my campaign with my players is in due order.
No, but I used a bit and then edited it because of how nicely you put that. Thanks for your insight, I liked it. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, eh? :)
Man I have an old (accepted) answer that for some reason went active recently and I keep getting trickling up and down votes to it for the last few days. Currently at +4/-4 lol
@Rubiksmoose given that Temp HP specifically states "They can still absorb damage directed at you while you’re in that state", refering to being at 0hp, it doesn't match RAW to make a death save when you take that damage
@GreySage It might be what they intended, but nowhere else in the rules can you substitute "Temp HP" for "HP". And yes, I agree that the sentence then has not that much meaning because absorbing damage doesn't really do much when you are at 0 HP.
@KorvinStarmast JC clarified that temp HP counts as taking damage, but I would argue that the specific interaction of Temp HP at 0 overrules the general "Take damage at 0 = failed death save".
Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury that is actual rules text.
Crawford has made some tweets in the past year or so that have almost run me out of grains of salt ... :)
@KorvinStarmast I still read it as they act as a buffer from your actual HP, but you are still taking dam age[to temp hp]. It doesn't matter which HP is taking the damage, but that YOU are taking damage.
@KorvinStarmast That rules citation can be interpreted both ways. Hence our disagreement. The only reason I didn't cite that in my answer was that I didn't need to to prove my point.
Plus we really can't ignore the rules themselves: "When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points. For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage."
Even with temp HP it is repeatedly referred to as "taking damage"
Yeah I think so. And I just realized how nasty crits are because of the instant double failure plus a much greater chance to exceed max HP when you roll the damage for an instant kill. Ouch.
This is our alternate game that has players attending on availability. I think tonight is Twilight Circle Druid, Mystic, Raven Warlock, Swashbuckler (coming late), and me.
@Rubiksmoose I probably have either 1 or 2 more sessions after this before I have to pick anyway.
I've got a homebrew feat where I can force disadvantage on an Intelligence save against illusions 1/SR that I'd like to make more useful (I moved away from the illusion path)
A spell caster with 6 temporary hit points is hit for 3 damage. Do they have to make a concentration check?
