Actually, OP, that sounds like a pretty interesting idea. Play through a family linage?

just play paranoia.

>>5951351
I don't want them to be linked in any way at all. So random people who are brought together by chance at pivotal moments in a land's history.

I am intrigued by your image and have decided to post this revelation in your thread rather than read your long post.

>>5951354
Never played it, how does it lend itself to this sort of game?
>>5951375
Resident Evil 5 isn't even that good.

>>5951380
I am more interesting the RE5 meta-game where race baiting blacks throw fits over a white person shooting black zombies in Africa.

So, low fantasy setting?

I'd say, first generation is medieval, second is reniassance, third is enlightenment.

In the first generation, the plots center around the king. In the second, they center around the rise of powerful merchant houses. In the third, the peasants are overthrowing the nobility in a bloody, anarchic, french-style revolution; see if you can get one of the PCs to become Napoleon.

>>5951393
Not low fantasy per se, there will be magic and what have you, I just don't want to make it part of the plot.

That's a good idea. I might also want to look into the technological levels(first one would be swords and bows only, second would have crossbows and siege stuff, third would have muskets and cannons).

>>5951331
> Save the English language: http://www.anonta[removethis]lk.com/ICARE
I feel like a soulmate to OP.

If the characters are completely unlinked to each other, then the benefits of the greedy, evil choice are automatically null and void. The only reason to choose them is a latent desire for mayhem.

Good becomes the only real option because you at least leave the episode on the imaginary moral high ground.

More over, with little time to connect to characters, the personalities and motivations of a single players character pool are likely to be similar if not the exact same, meaning what happens in your first adventure or two will resonate through the rest of the campaign.

How about this...

If the characters are presented with a fairly black and white choice - overthrow a flourishing kingdom or save it, aid the scam artist or expose him - then give them set rewards that will transfer to later characters.

The evil choice, usually the easier and more profitable one, will grant the extra money or an magic item to the player's next character.

The good choice, usually the harder and less profitable one, gives a physical, statistical bonus above and beyond simple XP.

The result is an actual choice - if the player goes all evil, he'll have oodles and cash and magic items, but he'll be inexperienced, frail, and easily defeated. If the players goes all good, he'll be a mental and physical paragon in rags and impoverished.

This almost forces some sort of mid-road, in which characters dabble in a sort of gray area and the effects of their choices resonant not only in the world, but in themselves, regardless of changing characters.

>>5951393

For the continuity you were talking about:

Say your country is, like Spain, on the border between two cultures (I'll say Western and Arabic for simplicity; you might go with the invading culture being based on anything or entirely made up.)

If, in the first game, they perform the assassination, in the second game the upper classes are mostly Arabic (or whatever.) Remember to describe the architecture and customs to give the PCs a sense they shaped the culture.

I'd suggest making the second game seem to be an economic feud between merchant houses, until the PCs discover that the agressor house is in fact a puppet of (whichever culture lost part 1) attempting to destroy the country's financial might and, therefore, their mostly-mercenary defenses.

In part 3, if the merchant houses won part 2, the bloody revolt is against a corrupt and scheming plutocracy. There is likely at least one merchant house secretly backing and supplying the revolution, manuvering for survival and a better place when the dust settles. If the merchants lost, the rebels are out to kill the aristocracy, overthrowing a decadent absolute monarchy like the real French Revolution. It's up to the PCs to whip the rebellion into shape, join the warring rebel factions into a cohesive whole with a utopian ideology, and forge the world's first republic (with themselves in top positions.) Or, of course, the whole thing could slide into an orgy of horrific executions and the party could lose their heads.

>>5951448
Hmmm......good point. Should I try to explain it somehow through the plot or just make it generic loot that carries forward?

>>5951448
Why would an evil person give their precious items and gold to the player's NEXT character?

>>5951470
Now I'm thinking going with the family lineage bit might actually be a good idea.....

Wouldn't it be more interesting if the evil character who makes money off other people's suffering in the first generation becomes a leader of one of those major merchant houses in the second part?

>>5951495
His descendant, maybe. That could also work, nice.
I'm planning on having several hundred years difference between each campaign.

>>5951504
His name is the name of the trading house, and there are huge-ass portraits of him looming on every wall. You know, older by then, getting a bit thick at the waist, gaze so piercing it feels like his fucking painting is sticking a rapier between your ribs.

And of course there are a billion family legends about Uncle (insert PC name here) and how he could turn any situation into a hefty profit.

>>5951468
Plot is nice... a family structure works well, buit that that seems to linear or convenient, then maybe the character that made the choice doesn't even ever see the benefit of his actions, it just sort of appears on and builds on the next character.

Explaining the full consequences of their actions is debatable. On one hand, doing so makes it feel too predetermined - like you're playing Fable or something. On the other side, if you don't explain it to some degree, you'll end of with a party of penniless Paladins or frail Overlords who are confused as to how you've balanced the game.

Another suggestion, and this is the one that gets difficult, is to allow individual players to choose either path. When you're changing characters every session, you don't need to worry about in-party conflict - each session is a clean slate. Having players who've chosen multiple directions in one group also provides some measurement for the players to judge how their actions effect them without you having to spell it out.

I think he was planning on having the segments far enough apart that there wouldn't be people still alive from one to another.

However, "descendants" works very well as a framing device. The way each character ends his adventure determines his family's position two or three generations later. Save the king? Your descendants are minor, but respected, government functionaries. Kill him? Your descendants are a wealthy, backstabbing merchant clan.

And, of course, in part 3 being part of the nobility becomes a problem rather than a bonus.

>>5951528
Fuck yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I reread Foundation and decided to make an RPG in the same (narrative) style.

I know you said no liches, but still.

>>5951537
>allow individual players to choose either path.
As long as I don't allow a partial victory or a compromise(that might confuse the future campaign) this could work.

>>5951538
I might have to hide some of their ancestries, though....if the party splits halfway through and these stories become handed down through legend or whatever, I doubt rival descendants would be too happy about working with each other.

It's not that hard for some of these guys to have a bastard child or whatever. I could even reveal the truth halfway through for some DRAMA

>>5951538
There could also be family secrets discovered in part three that occurred offscreen between parts one and two. For an example, you saved the king's life in part one. In part two, your family are nobility-in-name-only, having just enough power to perform whatever token bits of administration the king has entrusted to you, but none of the really powerful nobles respect you.

In part three, you discover that members of your family during part two were actually high ranking officers in the king's secret police, and that you have an entire extra branch of the family tree dedicated to Gestapoing. But you don't tell this to the player during part two, because his character isn't a member of that part of the family.

>>5951560

One side could still win the whole pot, but the if, say, most of the party chooses good and one player chooses evil, make that evil player one more hurdle they have to face, and still allow the evil player (even though he will almost definitely lose) the reward he would get for BEING evil.

The idea isn't to success, it's to choose, so reward the choice and the effort.

This is a pretty good idea.
Just pray nobody decides to RP a paladin who's taken a vow of chastity or something like that.

>>5951600
I wouldn't suggest EVERY character is a descendant of a previous character. I'd say it's perfectly enough if only one of the group is actually related to the previous group, although the new group should be able to piece together what happened to the previous group.

Again, the fact that you have multiple parts works to your advantage, since someone who failed during the dark ages can show up as just a throwaway NPC during the renaissance, and then the lineage becomes plot important again during the Enlightenment, when the star of the people who were important during the Renaissance is fading.

>>5951613
But if the evil player loses, he wouldn't get any of the loot or money he would have gotten for winning.

Then again picking a moral path for loot screams meta anyway.

If someone fails to provide any heirs, just continue on with their younger sibling and say THEY produced an heir.

You dishonor yourself and die? Well, your family was plunged into poverty and your sister was forced to marry the money-lender who was about to throw them out on the street.

CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR DYNASTY IS NOW SUPER-RICH BUT KINDA JEWISH*.

*insert ethnicity nobody likes yet everyone depends on here!

>>5951645

I disagree. Picking the "moral" path for the material benefits is a staple of playing evil characters.

You may have no actual loyalty to the crown, but if it looks like the assassination plot is going to fail, it's hardly sensible to go through with it. Far better to betray the people who hired you for the job.

>>5951645

...eh... you're right... it's sort of the balance between affecting the world and affecting the player.

If you don't still provide rewards when the party splits, then the party won't split. if the party doesn't split, then everyone advances along the same path. If everyone advances along the same path, then no one realizes how things affect them, and they just feel like you've designed the game in an awkward way.

More over, you lose that potential conflict in later lineages that comes with secrets in the past.

Yeah, it doesn't quite fit, and it is meta, but I think it still works. That's just me though.

>>5951666
That's for themselves. Perfectly in character.
I mean consciously picking the evil path because you know your next character will have more money this way.
>>5951659
Excellent idea.

This is getting better and better. Thanks, /tg/.

>>5951666
Of course, what traditionally happens to traitors is that whoever benefited from the treason says something like "Anyone who commits treason once will do it again" and then has you killed.

Sometimes things just don't work out the way you planned.

>>5951694
If they manage to overthrow the government by killing the king the enemy kingdom would provide them asylum.
If they crash the economy, they can just sail into a position of power at the head of a trading guild and rebuild it.
Third one doesn't matter because it's the last one.

Also, even with Evil PC's Merchant House, the new PC might not benefit entirely from his ancestry. For an example, he could be a not very respected scion of the house that everyone says doesn't deserve the proud name of (evil PC). His objective during the Merchant House portion of the game is to prove to the rest of his House that he is worthy, by preforming some great feat of domination in the byzantine tangle of merchant wars. Or maybe the Old Guard of the house are too conservative, and the House is fading because they're not willing to expand to new markets, and the PC is trying to take control of the House so he can guide it in new directions. Here, another moral choice can be made, and an evil PC might for an example get his trading house deeply involved in the slave trade, which again makes the third part even more different.

>>5951754
I can write up a generic table for how much fame/infamy they command within the family and then adapt it to my needs. Bit like DH's creation system.

>>5951684

>picking the evil path because you know your next character will have more money this way.

Committing treason so that your children and grandchildren will be wealthy and influential?

Sounds like history to me, bro.

>>5951713
Killing kings is frowned upon, even by the other kings. They don't like the precedent of people getting away with regicide, see, on account of them being kings themselves. If you murder a king and are paid to do so by another king, my advice is to somehow get your money and never be seen again, because if the king who pays you gets you in his power, you'll get to enjoy one of those incredibly overdone and drawn out executions where people have their eyes gouged out, the meat torn off their body with red hot hooks, quartered, hanged, burned and then finally beheaded.

>>5951775
You have a point.
And the good guys could do it for honour or whatever(and that translates to physical bonuses/respect).

>>5951789
....but you manage to knock someone up before said torture/execution.
And your family name will forevermore be looked down upon.

>>5951754

Being part of an evil rich family can be worse than being poor. Family members below you in the hierarchy want you disgraced or dead to improve their position. Family members above you want to use you as a tool in their schemes, or get rid of you before you can kill or disgrace them.

Good PCs get poor but respectable descendants. Evil PCs get rich backstabbers. This can happen regardless of the outcome of the previous adventure; the adventure outcome (which is determined by the actions of the whole party) decides what happens to the country. The actions of each PC determine what happens to his family.

Of course, you could have 2 PCs belong to the same family. That could be interesting.

>>5951817
And you get your love looking at you from the crowd of people cheering for your death (they cheer for the death of anyone - they don't give a fuck, they just love to watch people get tortured). She's standing there, stunned, still not being able to believe what they're about to do to you.

Possibly holding a wrapped baby, or massaging her growing belly with one hand.

It's up to the player how the character meets his end then.

>>5951831
...and if they're descendants of an evil family, they could be having their own little power struggle off in the side.
And one of them could be good(morality isn't hereditary) and be oblivious the the evil one's scheming or determined to stop it without stooping to his level or something.

I'm worried that I'm forcing my party's hand as far as character creation is concerned a bit too much.

Besides that, this is brilliant.

>>5951817
Your descendants would probably change their name. But people would still be talking about Kingslayer (Evil PC), and if anyone discovered you were related to him, they'd be shocked.

Of course, this is just grounds for extra awesome, because it means your grandfather was Old Stoneface Vimes.

>>5951868
You'll pretty much have to force their hand as far as the character's POSITION goes. You decide that one player is playing a street urchin, and another a member of a merchant house with FUCKHUGE gambling debts. What KIND of street urchin is up to the player.

Sorry, but dynastic games require more GM input than otherwise.

>>5951466

The action in parts 1 and 2 is largely driven by the shenanigans of the invading culture. OP seems to have settled on a Western European feel for the starting culture, but who are the invaders?

Arabic/Ottoman works for the direct historical parallel. Chinese could be interesting. Of course, it is a fantasy setting. High elves, looking to support their refined lifestyles on the backs of a subjugated human populace?

>>5951923
I was imagining it as more Italian than German, though. Although I suppose you could have some awesome merchant houses in Antwerpen or something. Also, let's keep nonhumans out of it. An invasion by the Ottomans, or China, or fuck it, THE GOLDEN HORDE HAS COME TO RAPE YOUR CONTINENT, BITCHES, might make a nice backdrop, though.

It'd be doubly hilarious if "China" is invading to make you relax your prohibitions on "Chinese" merchants selling opium to your farmers.

>>5951923
I didn't really think about this aspect but I was thinking of a Mongol Horde type nomad empire with an eye for economic and political manipulation.

>>5951919
You have a point....
I'll have to check with my players. Still, they're flexible enough folks and they've already expressed interest in this campaign of mine(although it has radically changed over the last half hour, so it remains to be seen whether they'll still like it)

>>5951919

The only thing you're really deciding is the character's relatives and wealth... and you're only somewhat deciding it yourself; it's based on the player's previous actions. And still, a good character in an evil family might eschew his heritage and do his best to make his own way in the world. A scholar or wizard character may not care about his family, focusing on studies.

>>5951888

"The archives were sealed for a reason, boy. You will be lashed, for your disobedience. But your determination has earned you the truth. Yes. The mysterious wealth which allowed your great-grandfather to found the house was indeed the blood-price of King Valun III. The damp that seeps from the foundation of this manor is the blood of royalty, boy. Your coin, your silks, your skin... stained by our ancestors deed. Done for your sake, boy. Remember this. Anything, for the family. Anything."

>>5951980
So it's up to the PCs to unify the continent, or else the Horde will Divide and Conquer?
Or else quickly sell out to the Horde while you can and make sure only the OTHER people get raped!
The next generation all have distinctly exotic features, somehow.

>>5951980
>Mongol Horde type nomad empire
>eye for economic and political manipulation.
What

Seriously, though, a fledgling rootless 'empire' would make a good enemy for this first campaign.

And from there, well, it's all variable.

>>5952038
Actually, it's more a matter of personal profit than scheming patriotism. That might get a bit confusing if I try to work it into this campaign.
>>5952048
Precisely.

>>5951973
>>5951980

MONGOL INVASIONS are good times... but both "foreign meddling" plotlines are rather more scheming and subtle than nomad hordes generally go for. And they don't really have a culture; they tend to assume the culture of whatever area they take over (see: Kublai Khan.)

The plot seems to demand a more civilized and scheming foe. That way, if they win in the first or second part, you can have interesting hybrid culture among the ruling class in the next section. Imagine a Chinese pagoda roof rising from the citadel in the center of the city; audiences with high officials are elaborate ceremonies, to the irritation of the few powerful houses that are local-born.

Okay, but all of these things are CONSEQUENCES.

First you need the first generation, and the first situation, which you can't just deduce from what came before. So have you got the first thing yet?

Not trying to be mean, but you're trying too hard. Most players I know would appreciate a well written story with a traditional plotline. When things get ridiculously complex players tend to get lost - no fault of their own, it's just the limitation of a RPG that there exists a point at which the DM is no longer sufficient to convey all the meaning of what's going on, even if he feels he understands it fully.

>>5952156
It's in the OP. The first two at least.

>Kill the king to weaken the morale of the populace enough for a foreign power to take over

>Crash the economy so that foreign power can move in and take over them economically

And someone suggested the third one should be

>Rebellion is brewing over either mercantile monopoly or political corruption and decadence.

>>5952189
It's probably not going to work out as dreamily as I'm planning here, but I tried running two traditional campaigns, and while they were alright, I think I'd like to try something a bit more original.

It's going to need a hell of a lot of planning, though.

>>5952142
They're not going to be a traditional nomad horde, sorry if I communicated that wrong.

I essentially want a faction trained in sabotage, espionage and assassination which is inspired aesthetically by Mongol culture and is nomadic in nature.

Going back to the idea of technology for a bit- rate of advancement should depend on which society is dominant during the period.

European society would develop things like crossbows, muskets, and siege weaponry faster.

Mongol society would focus on medicine and husbandry.


I think that one guy was right- this might be a bit too much.

>>5952309

It's a bit ambitious, but hardly unmanageable if he's a good GM. I once played in a World of Darkness game that ran from 1300 to the modern era. Good times.

OP, you're trying something complicated and cool. Good luck!