Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can you become Blood Bonded in soup?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    In every version except V5 you can become blood bonded by a tiny drop of blood, even diluted in food and drink, though the entire amount of food and drink would probably need to be consumed if it were only a drop. Ghouling required drinking an entire point, but bonding did not.

    Comment


    • #17
      This just seems like you want your players to always buy unbondable in every future vampire game and or other world of darkness games. That seems like the only thing you are going to get out of tricking the player vs the the character,

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
        This cuts down on cheap tricks, including blood bonding thousands of people by putting a drop of your blood into their drinking supply or bonding a victim with blood filled darts.
        This is the reason why I ultimately ruled in my chronicles that one can't "secretly" blood bond people to you. One has to ingest a noticeable amount of blood, and somehow be "imprinted" to the domitor. That doesn't prevent the vampire from using Forgetful Mind or pulling any number of other tricks. But it prevents scenarios that I find ridiculous or tiresome. There always seemed to be one or two players who would always want to do things like that. I didn't like how that option changed the nature of the game and the setting. A natural consequence of which is that everyone should be so paranoid that it kills the setting.

        Now a rejoinder is that instead the ST can simply deal with the unintended consequences of such an act. However, that doesn't prevent the PCs from being so paranoid that everyone's fun at the table stops. And in terms of a PC doing such a ploy, those PCs never wanted to deal with the consequences and it just degenerated everything at the game table. These players wanted to get automatic loyalty from certain mortals, but otherwise have them act the same. They didn't want disheveled Renfields ranting about the Master and being locked away into a nuthouse. Too much conflict over what they think should happen, and what the ST thinks should happen. Eliminating that possibility seemed like just the best solution to all the IC and OOC issues.

        In my mind, blood bonds and such are fine if the purpose is to create a good RP scene between the domitor and thrall. And to keep classic tropes of vampire literature like Renfield, or vampire "harem" brides or grooms devoted to the master vampire. There should be a real relationship in the game. It shouldn't be something done strictly for utility and convenience.

        Now that does not apply to the OP's scenario - he obviously has a serious plot in mind. Although I do share the concerns of others on this thread, that the lack of player agency in this forced manner generally creates bad blood and ill well. In all the game groups I've played with, it would create an immediate player rebellion and likely torch the chronicle. (There's a difference between player action leading to a scenario where they are bonded, and the ST dictating by fiat so that the PCs are bonded regardless of their actions.) However, since the poster stated he knows his game group and that they like things this, we're in no position to contradict that. So I can understand his comment that this isn't helping him.

        My understanding of the old blood bond rules is that it was quite easy to trick characters into consuming the vitae of another as you only needed a tiny amount, and there wasn't any ritual to it. I've even seen people argue that someone feeding on a ghoul could make them bonded to that ghoul's creator because his vitae is in the ghoul. I never quite bought into that, but it's certain arguable.

        To a lot of questions like this, I think the best response is to ask what makes sense to the genre? Is it conducive to the feel, or does it seem to turn the game into something else? Does it make sense in the setting, or do the necessary implications subvert and destroy it? Is it fun for the players, or does it aggravate them? Some gaming groups will come to different conclusions than others.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lian View Post
          This just seems like you want your players to always buy unbondable in every future vampire game and or other world of darkness games. That seems like the only thing you are going to get out of tricking the player vs the the character,
          And the GM is just as within their rights to say the player can't buy the Merit if it would be problematic to the chronicle.

          It remains incomprehensible to me that any gaming group wouldn't be fine with the GM tricking their players. It's been the case in every group I've played with that the GM seeks to keep players in the dark when NPCs are trying to deceive them.

          Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
          Although I do share the concerns of others on this thread, that the lack of player agency in this forced manner generally creates bad blood and ill well. In all the game groups I've played with, it would create an immediate player rebellion and likely torch the chronicle. (There's a difference between player action leading to a scenario where they are bonded, and the ST dictating by fiat so that the PCs are bonded regardless of their actions.) However, since the poster stated he knows his game group and that they like things this, we're in no position to contradict that. So I can understand his comment that this isn't helping him.
          This is an actually nuanced take on the matter. Most players I've gamed with would be fine with the GM designing a plot where NPCs tried to blood bond their PCs. Where they would get pissed off is if their PCs saw through the plot, avoided getting bound, and the GM continually kept trying to blood bond their PCs anyway, or just declared them bound by fiat. Most players can accept that NPCs will try to do bad things to their PCs. Few players enjoy feeling as if their choices don't matter.


          Blood and Bourbon, my New Orleans-based Vampire chronicle.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
            And the GM is just as within their rights to say the player can't buy the Merit if it would be problematic to the chronicle.
            Just as the players are free after the GM says that to say “fuck off, I’ll find another table.” A GM without players is just a frustrated author.

            Always remember that Rule One of RPGs is “No gaming is better than bad gaming.”

            It remains incomprehensible to me that any gaming group wouldn't be fine with the GM tricking their players. It's been the case in every group I've played with that the GM seeks to keep players in the dark when NPCs are trying to deceive them.
            There’s trying to deceive (as in the PCs have some chance to discover and counter the deception) and there’s trying to screw over your players (setting impossibly high difficulties or allowing the NPC to succeed by pure fiat).

            I don’t know a single player in my area who would put up with cheap railroading plots that completely undermine the concept of players having agency over their own PCs. People come play their characters not have a frustrated author narrate the story in their head to them.

            This seems like a table-breaking experience just waiting to happen. Every description of what the GM wants seems focused on making sure the players have no chance to possibly deviate from the story in the GM’s head. If that’s the case just write and post your fanfic... everyone will be happier.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post

              And the GM is just as within their rights to say the player can't buy the Merit if it would be problematic to the chronicle.
              Welcome to Pixel bitching.

              "Do you get anything to drink at the bar?" "OF COURSE NOT IT COULD BE BLOOD"



              It remains incomprehensible to me that any gaming group wouldn't be fine with the GM tricking their players. It's been the case in every group I've played with that the GM seeks to keep players in the dark when NPCs are trying to deceive them.
              I am going to give you a really simple example. Why its important that line between "NPCS are lying to me" and "THE GM is lying to me" are important differences. There are for example a number of sensory effects for blood. IN the Soup example the presumably someone with Heightened senses might have an option to detect such or you might give some clues based on the way the guy is acting that but the player fails to get the clues and act on it and the character is blood bound.

              Or you could just say "this guy gives you some soup" and "HA YOU"RE BLOOD BOUND"

              That's the thing you are missing as the GM and the sole determiner of how the setting works and what information the player has access to. They need to trust you are giving them information that it is the NPC that is acting within limits because.. you can just lie to them blatantly. You don't have to work through any mechanics. You can tell them its night when its day and instant gib the character..Rocks fall everyone dies... etc.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                Just as the players are free after the GM says that to say “fuck off, I’ll find another table.” A GM without players is just a frustrated author.
                If a player wanted to leave because they couldn't buy a Merit, I'd say their departure is probably for the best. "Sorry, you can't buy this Merit" being a dealbreaker seems indicative of fairly deep incompatibilities in gaming tastes. There are some GMs who let players buy anything they want for their PCs, and there are some GMs who are more strict. Players who are used to the former type of GM are likely to run into conflicts with the latter.

                Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                There’s trying to deceive (as in the PCs have some chance to discover and counter the deception) and there’s trying to screw over your players (setting impossibly high difficulties or allowing the NPC to succeed by pure fiat).
                Originally posted by Lian View Post
                ...you can just lie to them blatantly. You don't have to work through any mechanics. You can tell them its night when its day and instant gib the character..Rocks fall everyone dies... etc.
                I think this thread is reading overly much into the OP. They haven't said they plan to railroad their group and make it impossible for PCs to avoid blood bonds. They've just asked for ways to trick their players, because (one can infer) they want to keep their players' metagame knowledge on the same page as their PCs' in-game knowledge.

                OP might or might not be planning to railroad their players. What OP has said is that they know their group, and that their group will be okay with the scenario they are planning. We aren't really in a position to say otherwise.


                Blood and Bourbon, my New Orleans-based Vampire chronicle.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
                  OP might or might not be planning to railroad their players. What OP has said is that they know their group, and that their group will be okay with the scenario they are planning. We aren't really in a position to say otherwise.
                  Originally posted by Trippy View Post
                  OK so this is a bit left-field, but for plot purposes I am trying to work out a way of covertly Blood Bonding the characters without them realizing it.
                  Originally posted by Trippy View Post
                  The direct consumption rule is tricky to get over though. I may have to think of other ways to potentially trick the players into it.
                  Originally posted by Trippy View Post
                  So, when I use the narrative device of tricking players into carrying out actions, from the first person perspective of their characters it is a plot line.
                  And when people don't give him the answer he wants (and how its a bad idea), he says....
                  Originally posted by Trippy View Post
                  I’ll take the question to another forum.
                  So, yeah, I have no problems at all saying "frustrated author wants to railroad his players and deserves every bit of crap he'll receive for it."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I feel like what I've written, now several times, isn't being understood.

                    1. Scenario where a GM has NPCs try to covertly try to blood bond PCs. This can be railroading or not railroading, depending on how the GM adjudicates it.

                    It is not railroading if the PCs can avoid being blood bound through their own choices and/or dice rolls. The PCs might succeed and not get bound, or they might fail and get bound. So long as players have agency and can influence how the game's story plays out, there is no railroad, even if the GM is trying to trick them into the blood bond. The GM trying to trick their players during a social scene is fundamentally no different than the GM trying to kill PCs during a combat scene.

                    Because the GM doesn't have to "try." If they want to, the GM can simply declare they succeed and the PCs fail. Which takes us to...

                    It is railroading if the GM does exactly that and declares the PCs bound by fiat, ignores the results of their dice rolls, negates the use of powers that would avoid the blood bond, or otherwise makes it impossible for PCs to avoid being blood bound.

                    2. OP has said there will be a scenario where NPCs try to covertly try to blood bond PCs, and where the GM will attempt to trick their players too.

                    OP may be planning to railroad their players. OP may not be planning to railroad their players. Both may be possible from what we know. OP has not said either way, so we don't know.

                    3. Even if OP is railroading... so what? OP says they know their group and that the group will be okay with what they're planning. We know nothing about this group and its gaming tastes. There are some groups out there that don't mind railroading. They aren't groups I'd want to play with, as I don't enjoy railroading, but they exist. I don't enjoy "trenchcoats and katanas" style games, or games where it's verbotten for the GM to restrict a PC's available Merits, but those exist too. As long as a group is having fun, there is no wrong way to play the game.

                    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                    So, yeah, I have no problems at all saying "frustrated author wants to railroad his players and deserves every bit of crap he'll receive for it."
                    That is some judgment to be passing given how little we know. I don't know if another forum will give OP more useful replies than this one, but I can't blame them if they decide to leave for greener pastures.


                    Blood and Bourbon, my New Orleans-based Vampire chronicle.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
                      So, yeah, I have no problems at all saying "frustrated author wants to railroad his players and deserves every bit of crap he'll receive for it."
                      This is getting ridiculous.

                      There is no suggestion of railroading players to do anything.

                      What I am suggesting is that NPCs with ulterior motives are trying to trick the players into doing something that would be detrimental to them. The players and their characters retain complete agency to be able to choose whether they take the NPCs at face value and whether or not they will fall for the trick. The endgame of the chronicle could well be that they fail to pick up on clues, and fall for the trap. It could, however, also be that they don’t fall for the trap and then find ways to counter the intrigue with their own plots and tricks. Intrigue is the nature of the plot I am putting together and the threat is a potential blood bond they don’t want.

                      The irony in all of this, is that when people here think they are sticking up for player agency, all they are really doing is telling another Storyteller what stories they can or can’t tell around their own table. As pointed out already, I know my own players better than any of you and I know that they appreciate these sort of Machiavellian plot lines because I have run this sort of thing with them before and it was actually what they all said they wanted when we chose Vampire to play. I don’t need to be told what story I should be allowed to run or not, especially by people who seem unable to grasp what it is I am actually trying to do. So your ‘advice’ on the matter is not appreciated. It is useless towards the question being asked and does nothing to enhance the reputation of this forum as a welcoming, helpful one.

                      To those people that have made suggestions to answer the actual question being asked in this thread, and there have been some good ones that I will use in fact, despite all the threadcrapping, I say thank you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The virtue signaling is strong in this thread.

                        To the OP: just ignore it. None of us can possibly know your group better than you. Go have fun.
                        Last edited by PazuzuAxelf; 02-10-2021, 05:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                          snip
                          Yes, great post, I agree.

                          Which is why I like my own house rule that the victim must taste the vampire blood. It prevents players from getting silly with blood bonding and keeps them from feeling unfairly victimized too.

                          If players can easily blood bond hundreds or thousands of victims, there certainly could be some negative consequences, but the V:tM game breaks down. We get a bunch of wacky hijinks trying to manage your hundreds of obsessed fans.

                          It also gives players a heads up if someone tries to blood bind them. They drink the soup, they can taste vampire blood in it and get a strange feeling, they realize they have taken one step closer to the blood bond with another vampire. Maybe they get a funny feeling in the presence of the vampire they have drunk from too. That seems like a more interesting scenario than just “Surprise, your characters are blood bound.”

                          As others have said, I would be a little wary of a game where all of the characters were blood bound so quickly and easily, it would be a red flag for a bully ST. I don’t want to say that the OP here is like that, I don’t know him or his players, but I could imagine that some players may not be happy about this.

                          A few things to keep in mind about the setting if we go with a blood bond interpretation that even microscopic amounts of blood can secretly blood bond victims. If that is the case, then one of the most important lessons that any vampire will be taught, even brand new neonates, is that you NEVER EVER drink anything that is offered to you. You only drink blood straight from the source or you drink it from a container that has only been in your own possession and otherwise tightly locked away. If blood binding is so insanely easy, then any vampire more than a few days old needs to be paranoid about getting blood bound.

                          Another consideration is that if these characters are neonates, then where are their sires? Any sire worthy of the name should warn their childer to never drink anything given to them by anybody. Blood binding another vampire’s childe is an act of war, doing this to several neonates should be a controversial act in game as well as out.

                          Another thing to keep in mind is that the way you run your game is going to encourage a certain kind of playing style. Sometimes players can actually become damaged by too many STs or GMs tricking them. If you want to be able to have an NPC invite the PCs over for a meeting at some future point, then you might want to be careful about making too many meetings like that into traps.

                          I once ran a game for a number of players who had been subjected to too many traps and tricks and it was incredibly hard to get the group to do anything. They refused to deal with NPCs, wouldn’t bite on any plot hooks, planned every act with such tedious caution that it took the fun out of the game.

                          So I’m not necessarily saying that this sort of thing is bad, but it’s something to be careful with because the way this situation is handled could have broader implications about how your players interact with the game world and about how the setting works.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
                            If players can easily blood bond hundreds or thousands of victims, there certainly could be some negative consequences, but the V:tM game breaks down. We get a bunch of wacky hijinks trying to manage your hundreds of obsessed fans.
                            That's certainly a problem. I've found that many players don't want to deal with repercussions of things like this or breaches of the Masquerade, or other things that preserve the setting. Players just want to play with their toys, and it only takes one player to force the game down the path where both the ST and PCs aren't having any fun. The problem with "just let them learn the consequences of their actions" is that those consequences can suck the life out of the game by hijacking the plot into something neither the ST or PCs want. Then nobody is having fun.

                            Almost always I find that the players need to see the game being destroyed as a result of their actions, and they then want a "do over". They learned their lesson and will now behave. But they don't want to deal with the consequences of their action. As a result, we somehow figure out a retcon so we can move on and all have fun. This always frustrates me, but I've learned to deal with this.

                            I think in actuality, the PCs should have had such lessons - in more minor ways - during their Fledgling period before release. Their sire, or Mentor, or general experience navigating things on their own, would have drilled these lessons into their head. But the players, of course, lack this because they only spent 5-10 minutes creating their character instead of 5-25 years learning how to survive.

                            Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
                            A few things to keep in mind about the setting if we go with a blood bond interpretation that even microscopic amounts of blood can secretly blood bond victims. If that is the case, then one of the most important lessons that any vampire will be taught, even brand new neonates, is that you NEVER EVER drink anything that is offered to you. You only drink blood straight from the source or you drink it from a container that has only been in your own possession and otherwise tightly locked away. If blood binding is so insanely easy, then any vampire more than a few days old needs to be paranoid about getting blood bound.

                            Another consideration is that if these characters are neonates, then where are their sires? Any sire worthy of the name should warn their childer to never drink anything given to them by anybody. Blood binding another vampire’s childe is an act of war, doing this to several neonates should be a controversial act in game as well as out.
                            Yes, I agree that this can create a lot of problems. Furthermore, it is not just an OOC issue, because the players are reacting in a completely rational way, and the NPCs should be acting the same way! The issue of the blood bond and its role in vampire society is something I feel the game did not adequately address in certain ways. Abuse of the blood bond is one of the primary reasons for the Anarch revolt. And as part of the compromises by the elders in creating a Camarilla, it would have been addressed. And subsequently, Conclaves would have addressed the issue. So this is a gap I think STs need to fill.

                            So in my chronicles, I tell players that there are very clear rules that regulate its use. Just like the British have an unwritten constitution comprised of various precedents and statutes, the Conclave system has generated a lot of unwritten rules (not always standard across all domains, but some things are). And most of the regulations concerning blood bonds are very old - originating either in the Founding of the Camarilla, its first conclave, or the Convention of Thorns.
                            • One of them is that sires usually cannot blood bond their childer. Certainly not as fledglings.
                            • Another is that while blood bonding to the Prince (or Justicar or Archon) is an accepted punishment for crimes, it's only for certain kinds of crimes. And is heavily monitored to prevent abuse or destabilization of the domain.
                            • Mutual, voluntary blood bonds (between "lovers") tend to be under the radar, but are discouraged. In some domains, they may be legal and in others illegal. But it is a grey area.
                            • There is also the issue of vampires swearing the blood oath to another (not mutual) to obtain favors, prestation, or boons. This is voluntary, but obviously open to abuse. So this is heavily regulated, and not just by the Prince and Primogen, but by Justicars and Archons. Rare cases are allowed without much opposition if they are open and publicly known (though "public" may just mean the Prince and elders are aware, not every neonate in the domain). But when done secretly, in great numbers, or in any kind of way that seems abusive or a threat to the stability of a domain, this gets clamped down hard. Nobody wants someone grooming a private army loyal only to them.
                            • Attempts to trick people into or force the blood bond is almost always illegal.
                            • Certain figures of positions of authority are allowed to blood bond a select group if needed to carry out their authority. This includes Justicars and their archons, and sometimes Princes and their minions. In most cases this is heavily regulated by the Inner Circle or domain Primogen.
                            • Punishment for illegal blood bonding is severe, but varies (usually by how influential the violator is - a Caitiff neonate without friends will be destroyed, but a powerful Prince with friends in many domains will be treated quite differently). Destruction is common, but sometimes it is to suffer the blood bond to another, or some other form. Sometimes the punishment includes the destruction of the blood bonded! And outside official punishment, abuses by Princes makes a great pretext for a Praxis seizure and destruction of that Prince. Informal punishments can be just as bad as formal ones.
                            Of course, that's just the law. Obedience and enforcement can be all over the place in some domains. And since some of the regulated practices heavily depends on politics, there are legitimate issues of complaint. But the system of Justicars and Conclaves create an ongoing forum to prevent the worst abuses. It allows me to keep certain blood bond scenarios as plots or backstory when needed, but addressing what I think would disrupt the setting and allow PCs and NPCs to go about their normal business.

                            These rules only apply to the Camarilla. The Sabbat of course don't worry about this because they have vinculum. But since the elder Sabbat in sect positions like to use the vinculum as a way to bond other Sabbat closer to them, this is a major complaint of the Loyalists. The Independents essentially do whatever they want to their own clan members, and the Setites and Giovanni make high use of it. The Camarilla does not allow any member of the clans of the Inner Circle to ever be legally bonded to anyone outside its control.

                            The Anarchs are actually all over the place on it since they don't have an effective government. In the old LA Free State, the rule was simple - no blood bonds ever (including voluntary, mutual ones between lovers). But most Anarchs existed outside the Free State. And while committed ideologues were always against it, the large criminal element in the Anarchs didn't care. Someone like Juggler will just use the blood bond whenever he thinks he can get away from it. And some Anarchs are naively fooled that the best way to prevent them from being blood bonded to the Prince is to voluntarily blood bond themselves to their "friend."

                            Obviously there are certain conundrums of the game that still need explanation. Prior to V5, there was always something about the Tremere being sent to Vienna to be blood bond to the Council. But I figure this was partly in secret, partly regulated by the Inner Circle, and partly propaganda against the Tremere in general ("you can't trust those Tremere, don't you know they are all blood bonded to each other!").

                            A bigger problem is that Archons are supposedly blood bonded to their Justicars. I never liked that because Justicars only serve for a set period of time, and they can leave their position. So what happens to those Archons? Especially because the book also says Archons sometimes serve new Justicars. But if they're bonded to someone else, the new Justicar could not be assured of their loyalty. So this is something I've had to apply some common sense to, and the reality in my chronicle is much more complicated.

                            That is how I handle it, but every ST will approach it differently. (I think the default is to not give this any consideration at all!)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post

                              I think this thread is reading overly much into the OP. They haven't said they plan to railroad their group and make it impossible for PCs to avoid blood bonds. They've just asked for ways to trick their players, because (one can infer) they want to keep their players' metagame knowledge on the same page as their PCs' in-game knowledge.

                              OP might or might not be planning to railroad their players. What OP has said is that they know their group, and that their group will be okay with the scenario they are planning. We aren't really in a position to say otherwise.
                              I am responding to your quote here

                              It remains incomprehensible to me that any gaming group wouldn't be fine with the GM tricking their players.



                              And I explained there needs to be a clear line between the NPCS tricking the characters and the GM tricking the players. MORE that decades of failed mystery plots have taught me clues are alot less obvious than you think if you already have the answer.

                              SO yeah given that the GM has a level of control of information back and forth I don't think the GM should be playing their A game for NPCs to trick the players given that the GM is not going to give the level of detailed information that the player character could recieve in universe. The ST isn't going to be able to clearly demonstrate body language of every npc, now.. they could focus on only IMPORTANT NPCs but.. that does sort of lead back in the other direction.

                              But do you now concieve of how trust and giving enough information is important for a group to function?



                              Originally posted by PazuzuAxelf View Post
                              The virtue signaling is strong in this thread.

                              To the OP: just ignore it. None of us can possibly know your fro better than you. Go have fun.
                              Virtue signaling? TO WHO? Seriously if you ask for advice you should expect it. If you want "just do whatever you want" then you don't need random people on the internet telling you how awesome you are.

                              But advice was asked and clearly the OP does care about not being a Fiaty railroader if they didn't they wouldn't care about "what is possible" in setting. So I am prefacing that its important to have a line between NPC action and GM action. To think of it as "THE NPC" is tricking the character not "I AM" tricking the character. It creates a sense of objectiveness it allows you to more clearly decide what information you should provide the players to help them determine their character's actions. When you think of it as YOU the GM are in conflict with the players rather than the fiction of the NPC vs the PC you may be prone to NOT give players the information they need since you consider "Tricking" them the win condition. This UNINTENTIONALLY leads to the railroading that pure Fiat would have gotten to.

                              But the OP is free to say "I know my players its totally OK" and maybe they are right.. I mean I am only coming from my perspective where a GM pulled a twist that completely destroyed the game under the assumption that we were all on the same page about it. So I don't trust the intrinic idea that a gaming group is a hivemind and you can't step into minefields even if you've played with the same group before... and if the OP really felt that way as they claim then... why are they asking us if Soup bloodbinding is ok? IF the Group is OK with Soup being used as a medium for hiding blood.. they will be OK with it no matter how many people in the internet say so. It also probably won't matter what random book says about it. Though I am sure there are people who play a game with that level of rules/setting lawyery.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Lian View Post
                                if the OP really felt that way as they claim then... why are they asking us if Soup bloodbinding is ok?
                                The OP (me) isn’t asking that. The IP is asking for ideas to build a plot where NPCs are trying to trick the PCs. The soup is just one idea, and it wasn’t asking if it was morally OK - it isn’t meant to be - it was asking if it would technically work.

                                And no, putting out challenges and deceptions for PCs to overcome is not the same as railroading.
                                Last edited by Trippy; 02-10-2021, 11:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X