Plainsrunners: About the Tribe
May 27, 2015 5:21:32 GMT
Post by Tenderleaf on May 27, 2015 5:21:32 GMT
I am okay with no one finding the tracks - perhaps humans do not occupy the area the elves do, because of how barren it is? I am envisioning hard earth, too... almost like the savannah, where tall grass grows, but it is yellow and there is not much water. Of course, there could be a river they follow nearby, and wells could be dug at any location.
But on the subject of NPCs, is it reasonable to say EVERYONE'S parents are dead or just... missing? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. This tribe seems to be isolated, with a long history, so there is no way to explain away a bunch of missing family other than they stay behind at one of the permanent locations (ie. there's no "sister tribe" this one splintered off of, etc. like with the WRs and WDs). Of course, having them all get killed off would be another possibility, but that seems a bit far-fetched as well, if we're not bringing in humans. Plus there are a few people who have expressed an interest in playing children... so are they ALL orphans?
I think we do fine with NPCs in the GB tribe - they are mentioned, but don't bog down the game. I think we could have LESS of them in the PRs, though - we have several in the GBs who are not even related to any PCs. I would limit NPCs to actual family members of PCs, if we have them.
The benefit of having NPCs stay at the two permanent locations is so we have people "guarding and maintaining" those strongholds while the nomadic part of the tribe wanders freely, and you only have to deal with a particular NPC one season out of the year (since they travel for two, and spend one of the two remaining at each location). They don't even really need to be mentioned, outside of "they greeted them as they arrived", etc. if we don't want to do more than that. And again, this allows for new players to jump in, and for old players who are leaving to "fade out" rather than have to be killed off.
But that's just my logic.
But on the subject of NPCs, is it reasonable to say EVERYONE'S parents are dead or just... missing? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. This tribe seems to be isolated, with a long history, so there is no way to explain away a bunch of missing family other than they stay behind at one of the permanent locations (ie. there's no "sister tribe" this one splintered off of, etc. like with the WRs and WDs). Of course, having them all get killed off would be another possibility, but that seems a bit far-fetched as well, if we're not bringing in humans. Plus there are a few people who have expressed an interest in playing children... so are they ALL orphans?
I think we do fine with NPCs in the GB tribe - they are mentioned, but don't bog down the game. I think we could have LESS of them in the PRs, though - we have several in the GBs who are not even related to any PCs. I would limit NPCs to actual family members of PCs, if we have them.
The benefit of having NPCs stay at the two permanent locations is so we have people "guarding and maintaining" those strongholds while the nomadic part of the tribe wanders freely, and you only have to deal with a particular NPC one season out of the year (since they travel for two, and spend one of the two remaining at each location). They don't even really need to be mentioned, outside of "they greeted them as they arrived", etc. if we don't want to do more than that. And again, this allows for new players to jump in, and for old players who are leaving to "fade out" rather than have to be killed off.
But that's just my logic.