I made a villain form for GM use. I searched and found a post from 3 years ago, but all the links were dead. Hoping I didn't miss anything; please let me know if I did. Feel free to use.
Edit: These are villain sheets. Should include that to aid with future searches.submitted by /u/JustSomeCatholicGuy
So here's the deal. I want to kill a npc in front of pcs but I don't want them feel deprived of their player agency.
The situation: - PCs are enemies with a Porté Assassin, top tier villain, 15 rank, most Strength, less Influence. - one of the PCs has an Uncle. The Uncle is actually a villain too, same 15 rank, most Influence, less Strength. The Nefew PC imagine it but it's not sure. Or at least he doesn't want to believe Uncle is a bad person. - Uncle and Porté Assasin hate each other. PCs know it. - Porté Assassin is waiting the chance to kill the Uncle. PCs imagine it. - PCs are going to the Uncle to ask him support to fight Porté Assassin. - they're bringing along with them Porté Assassin's sword. They know it's a Mark. They don't know it's a Major Mark.
This is my idea: - Uncle actually gives PCs a leverage to fight the Porté Assassin. (a way to find him? Someone who can find him? Something to suppress his powers? Dont know yet). - right after that, Porté Assassin travel to his marked sword, right in the Uncle home, and kills Uncle in front of the PCs. Then run away with Porté bc that's what porté assassins do.
I love the idea that this would give the chance for the Nefew PC to hate Porté Assassin even more and seek vengeance. Also bc we're near to the final confrontation and I want to make stakes higher.
But they're Heroes. I don't want them feel like their just watching a movie or watching Sephiroth [spoiler] killing Aerith [/spoiler].
So how can I make them interfere with the action just enough to not make them feel just watchers... But actually without changing the outcome?
With game mechanics? For example telling them they need an exaggerate amount of hero points to save the Uncle? (I don't like this, seems like cheating).
Or I could give them something in exchange? Like how Jhon Wick does in Starter Kit when he gives PCs hero points to buy the right to control the scene giving them a bad outcome?
Or... I could be brutally honest with players? "hey guys I want to control the scene to make something cool, just for the sake of the story. Do you agree with that?"
What do you think?submitted by /u/gamma1987
Something unusual I've noticed about this game is the fact that the players need to control the NPCs to some degree. Otherwise they can't setup the action they want to perform.
For example, here's a recent move,
Magnus, seeing the vial skip across the floor, weaves after it through the chaos. Just as he is about to grab it, he feels an urchin dive for it in front of him. Reacting quickly, he grabs the urchin by their shirt.
As the GM, I didn't decide that a urchin was going to try to grab the bottle. That was entirely the player's choice. He wrote that into the story because it sounded cooler for his Hero to have to stop one of the thieves.
Now to be fair I did have to prompt him a little. Among his opportunities I offered him,
Secure the vial (e.g. pull a kid back, kick it away from someone else, knock over someone reaching for it) [1 raise, creates opportunity for yourself or another character to pick it up]
But if all goes well, over time I won't have to offer those hints and the players will just get used to the idea that we share the NPCs.submitted by /u/grauenwolf
Thanks to quarantine my girlfriend and roommate are starting to give rpg's a try. We've been watching various AP's and 7th Sea was the one that stuck out to them the most. Of course I'm thrilled, I always love introducing people to the hobby, but there is one problem. I've had the core book for years and read it up and down, but never got to play it myself.
There's still some core concepts I don't understand too well (coming up with consequences, what you can/can't do with a single raise, dramatic scenes, optimal session pacing, etc.) and with that in mind I'd really like to play at least a one-shot to better understand the system before I run it myself. So, if anyone is interested in playing/running an introductory game during these crazy times, let me know.submitted by /u/Typhon58
So I'm wondering how others handle these things as a GM.
When a player tries to, say, intimidate an NPC into giving him the information he needs, in almost any other system, this is resolved with a dice roll. So best I can think of is to make the players roll Intimidate and, idk, Brawn (say they're physically threatening the NPC). So the player is going to throw however many dice, and the odds of getting one raise are always the same. That's whether they're trying to intimidate some poor farmer kid who's shaking in his boots or one of the kongen-whatevers of Eisen. So I've just been making things more or less difficult in situations like this by requiring, say, 1 raise on the kid and maybe 3 or 4 on the Eisen. Is that the right way to do this? I can't imagine that the players should be succeeding to intimidate on 1 raise for every single intimidation attempt. There would virtually never be any risk of failure as long as you choose one social skill and up it to three. I haven't sat on the player side for 2e at all yet, but personally I think I'd find that boring. What's the point of playing if everything is already rigged without me even doing any of the rigging in-game?
I also can't think of consequences for something like this that makes sense in game. Say you're intimidating someone with combat experience. Okay, you need 1 raise to succeed and another raise to avoid being attacked by the person you're trying to intimidate. Oh, you rolled 1 raise, what are you going to use it for? To succeed... so he's scared enough of you to hand over information he was trying to keep secret, but he's also not scared so he's going to attack you... Do we work backwards with these, something like "You need 1 raise to keep him from attacking you and a second raise to actually succeed at the intimidation." I like that approach a lot, but then I feel guilty about taking away player agency, because I'm dictating the order they have to use raises in. Thoughts?
Then there's the question of passive perception. "Roll a notice plus wits for me." I've been using this and then just telling them how many raises they need to succeed and if they get it or above giving them the information. If not, they don't notice it. Now, I've also run a few dramatic sequences where I'll say "You can spend a raise to notice something about X." I like this a lot better, but I don't think it makes sense for everything to be a dramatic sequence. I've only used dramatic sequences 3 times in a 6-session span of time. Am I just not using them often enough?
Lastly, whenever you play something like DnD, the DM/GM will keep the number you needed to reach in order to succeed a secret. So if I do go with something like the 1 raise to avoid being attacked, another raise to succeed in intimidating him approach, do I keep those numbers secret? I've been telling players these things before they roll.submitted by /u/JustSomeCatholicGuy
I've been running a game for about 6 sessions now and we've had an Action Sequence in most though not all of those games. I'm finding them very difficult and unrewarding as a GM.
As I understand it, each round as the GM I need to construct an interesting resource management problem for the players. They will have a certain number of raises and I need to make sure it is challenging for them to assign them in such a way as to get what they want and avoid negative consequences.
One of the problems with this is that I don't know when I'm building the puzzle how many raises they'll have. My experience at this point says that a character not playing to their strengths will usually have 2 or 3 raises and that one who is will usually have 4 or 5 but it's ultimately down to the vagaries of dice. This reduces setting an appropriate difficulty level guesswork.
My second major problem is this: I'm used to games that have a random element to the efficacy of player actions and the shift to a game where randomness applies to the player's capacity to act is very difficult.
My players are not inclined to take a gamist approach to systems but they have noticed that in many circumstances they would have far greater agency in the Action Sequence if they declared whatever approach gave them the best dice roll and then simply paid the 1 Raise penalty for acting outside that approach.
This is particularly true for one character who for narrative reasons is heavily statted for combat but tries to take a non-violent approach to situations.
In a more traditional system this character's high physical stats would give them an advantage to reacting quickly and positioning themselves. They would often get the chance to attempt to intervene and talk people down, even if they then failed at those attempts.
In this system if they declare they are doing something they are not skilled at (diplomacy) they will get a low number of raises and consistently act late in the round. By the time they get to act people have already committed to violence and they have missed their opportunity to intervene.
Another problem that characters that act later in the round run into is that there isn't much than can do to effect the outcome. They are both acting late and have less capacity to act. They are rarely in a position to significantly effect the outcome and if they are it is in the manner of a foregone conclusion, "you have to spend your raises here or else".
These seem like weird problems for a system ostensibly build around letting the characters be heroic and DO THINGS to have. Am I completely missing something?submitted by /u/xounds
I've been digging for a few hours, and can't find an answer to my question elsewhere; sorry if I've missed it.
On page 181 of the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook this example is given under "Healing Wounds":
"For example, John gets in a sword fight with his nemesis. He wins, but over the course of the fight he takes a total of 19 Wounds. This means that he's taken 3 Dramatic Wounds. At the end of the scene, all of his wounds go away, but he still has 3 Dramatic Wounds.
If he gets into another sword fight, he starts at zero wounds on the first tier of his Death Spiral, but all of his Dramatic Wounds are already filled in. His new opponent, if a Villain, gains 2 Bonus Dice (2 Dramatic Wounds), but John gains 1 Bonus Die and all of his 10's explode (1 Dramatic Wound and 3 Dramatic Wounds, respectively)."
My question is, in this second sword fight, does John receive his 4th Dramatic Wound (and become Helpless) after he receives 5 Wounds, or 17 Wounds?
Thanks!submitted by /u/BigAsLifeTwiceAsUgly
Hello! I've created a character from Ashur and happen to have the "I've Been Waiting For This" advantage, which is a 5 pointer, but from my reading of it... I don't see that it does anything at all? Hoping I have misread it and someone out there knows the proper reading!
So to use this advantage I spend 1 Hero Point and meditate on the future. Then later I enter a dramatic sequence. At this point I spend 1 Hero Point to grant two allies 3 bonus dices, because of the advantage. But at this point I might as well have saved my Hero Point from the advantage, and just use two Hero Points in this scene, also for a total of 6 dice?
Maybe the value then comes when I have 3 Hero Points, spending one to activate the advantage. Then later spending two to give out dices twice for a total of 12 dices for 3 Hero Points. At this point I have gained 3 dices extra because of the feat, but 3 Hero Points is kind of a lot!
Or maybe I am missing something? Happy to hear any insights, I am thoroughly confused :Dsubmitted by /u/Nic-V
I'm running an experiment to see if 2e works better in a play-by-mail setting rather than in person. I figure the slower pace allows for more story-driven tension (as opposed to dice-driven tension, which is pretty low in this game) and more time to think of suitable opportunities and consequences for unexpected player decisions.
The reason I'm asking is that I'd like to hear how you dealt with rolls. I'm debating between a couple of styles:
- Option 1: players spend all their actions up front, at the risk that later actions might need to be changed as they are resolved
- Option 2: use the same turn order as normal, at the risk that the scene will take multiple days to resolve
The system keeps saying about how actions have consequences and opportunities, but something I don't quite understand is "passive" actions.
If a player on a ship says he wants to prevent the villain from going up, what happens? What if the villain comes first on the initiative?
(2th Ed.)submitted by /u/Armatheus
I'm new to RPGs and 7th sea sounds cool. Are there any free adventures I could try it out with? Kinda like a tutorial adventure or something like that?
Thanks :)submitted by /u/Party-Permission
In the HEROES & VILLAINS book I see that they've given a Virtue and Hubris to each villain, but I don't see the rules on how that works.submitted by /u/grauenwolf
I'm starting a new campaign soon called "Pirates of the Frothing Bay", but I don't actually know anything about that region.submitted by /u/grauenwolf
I do not know what the culture analogous to syrneth would be, can someone help me?submitted by /u/Armatheus
Well, I have a problem and a question related to that.
I love 7th sea (2nd ed.) both rule-wise and its unique settings. I love the fact that players can come from all over the known world and can live heroics adventure in a settings that resamble the europe i know (somewhat) well by adding magic, monsters and misterious artifacts.
There is a problem though: I don't know how to start to gm a session. Main problem with that is: why character need to work along each other even if they come from different social, cultural or geographic extraction?
Let me elaborate this a little better. I imagine things to go this way: I ask players to create their characters and like everyone will get a different nation, a different social extraction and so on. I played rpg where characters had different origins, but the game allowed them to cooperate in some way by threatening mankind with a bigger treath. So the authors knew that it could be troublesome for the gm to gather together a simil-japanese loyal samurai, an high-tech emotionless cyborg and a rigid german-russian-like former dragoon and provided them a common purpose straight out of the box.
There was even legendary places mentioned all over the manual where nations didn't matter and even social gathering that seek to reunite the best talents of each nations.
So I'd love to know: am I just overthinking this too much? How do you guys get a bunch of completely different character to cooperate in a way that doesn't sounds like "let's cooperate for the sake of the story, because this is a game and we should have fun"?submitted by /u/Elsman
I've been GM'ing for my wife and brother for a couple of months. My brother and I have each played one 1st edition 7th sea campaign that my uncle ran which we never finished, and I've played a few short D&D campaigns while my brother games regularly with a D&D group. This is my wife's first tabletop experience.
I am considering ordering the core rulebook, since we only have been using the free rules. I know that there is probably a more comprehensive list of advantages, there are the dueling schools, and a comprehensive list of sorceries, etc. But I find myself struggling more to create the proper setting, working with what little lore I have access to, than running sequences adhering to the rules. From a GM perspective, I'm hoping that the rulebook will contain a lot of lore, things specific to cities, names, personalities, and motivations of some of the better known characters in Theah, and maybe extra background on the nations' histories and cultures. Does the book contain a lot of this?submitted by /u/JustSomeCatholicGuy