Do you want changelings to be playable characters, or part of the backdrop?

YOu could have a group of children living in the midst of zombie devastation drawing some sort of positive energy from something that the evil spirits can't detect or tarnish (there's probably a loophole or weakness, but they aren't looking for it yet because the kids are essentially invisible as long as they don't pose a threat).

The PCs could become aware of them by having their asses handed to them by a 12-year-old wielding a wiffle bat and a trashcan lid and wearing a colander as a helm.

Idea #2: The Fae could be other spirits unaffiliated with the bad guys who are actively called by people who remember the Old Ways (they know to leave milk by the door and to burn an offering on Lughnasadh).
Mechanically, they could be like a vampire, but instead of an evil spirit in a mortal body, they could be a nature or other spirit in a mortal body, who feed on Glamour the way vampires feed on blood.

Perhaps the Unseelie are trying to join the bad guys.

#3. The Incursion affected Arcadia as well as Earth. Mortals who had been taken to the Faerielands were able to escape in the confusion. You can't go home again, it turns out, and the mortals touched by the faeries have to find a place in the new, tainted world.

The mechanics of your second idea are definitely the way I was going - sort of the classic changeling thing of looking like a person but being something else entirely.

At this point, I think I might have the Fae show up later on in the Intrusion as more creatues spill out of that reality into ours. To this point, there's a sort of, "you're either with us or against us," mentality, and having the Fae stand for, "meh, whatever. Ooo, pretty flowers!" would present a delicious complication.

On WoD, that's an awesome plot. The Fae are, by their nature, given to extremes and personalizing big events. They'd be kind of an interesting group of free agents.

Last night's synopsis:
In celebration of the death in battle of the last pretender to the throne from a previous dynasty, a great tourney was held in the capital.
PCs:
The [functionally retarded and alcoholic] King,
the [Ambitious] Duke [that the King trusts too much],
the [corrupt] Master of Hunt, and
the [young and impressionable] Princess.

I played a messenger that had to deliver a personal message to the King. It couldn't be uttered to anyone else, and no one could know that I *was* a messenger.

Long story short, I screwed up and ended up having the message tortured out of me by the Duke's men.

A lot of fun. Dice, er...still seem confusing.

Boo for torture in the first session! You do that in the third or fourth session, once the players are lulled into complacency.


Playing up my own religious proclivities, I'm also sort of holding out angels as a sign of hope, that with the Intrusion came people who might actually want to help people.

Of course, anyone who's read the Old Testament knows what angels are actually like, and it really is down to the Awakened.

Oh, didn't mention this before, but it's the Awakened that kept the Iconnu from wiping out all life - they can only alter reality that isn't being perceived, truly seen, but anyone. The Awakened are like anyone else, just more circumspect and, consequently, wherever they are, the Iconnu can't grab hold. So, guess who the vampires, werewolves and demons (a few mages, too) are gunning for?

The character was a throw away, just to show me the flavor of the game and to go through all the motions of a game. IE. Opposed rolls, combat, saves, sneaky stuff, et cetera. His torture and death was almost impossible to avoid. I find it interesting to play a character that is less intelligent than myself. I came up with plenty of ideas over the session, and then dismissed them as being too clever.

That is a very entertaining problem.

I'm usually a very cautious gamer, but had a wizard with a Wisdom of 7. I routinely tossed out plans and ideas as being far, far too sensible.

So, the throwaway, any chance you'll end up investigating his death? That's always wonderfully meta.

My real character *sent* the throwaway to tell the King he was returning to court and relay a discovery about the Duke.

The next session will likely begin with my main being ambushed on the road (as the Duke has advanced warning of me and my tidings) or some other serious assassination attempt on me. But I must now make the character, without this information in mind. IE. No stacking different feats that will give me poison immunity or something like that.

I'm actually having quite a bit of fun.

Some resistance wouldn't be remiss - I mean, you wouldn't last long at court if you can't survive at least the occasional poisoning while learning the ropes.

What honestly surprises me is the lack of resentment. I am basically starting out in direct opposition to another player, and it doesn't show outside of the game at all. I imagined the atmosphere would be more...tense.

Contrary to what Dark Dungeons and other sources say, the vast majority of gamers find it very easy to compartmentalize the difference between their character and themselves. Sounds like you've got a good group.

Yes, that does sound like a good group.

We sometimes have problems in our group because four of us are married couples who share a house, so we know eachother pretty well and can tell when someone has their character do something just to be annoying/push buttons and when they're authentically playing their character. It usually works out in the end, though.

I once used a GM's wife's character as a human shield. It was glooorious.

(Then I got his character horribly mangled while his wife was GMing. That was fun, too.)

The phrase "meta gaming" is used often with much derision by the group, but I don't think I understand.

Is that stacking numbers and kind of forgeting about the story?

Yes.

However, in defense of meta-gaming... don't cripple yourself because you're afraid to make an effective character. There are all kind of loopholes in the D&D rules, some more obvious than others, and its not the player's fault that the developers didn't catch them.

Use your own sense of "too much" and "not enough" at first, then gauge that against the other characters, and the NPC's, in your game. Sometimes, if you haven't done much already or used a particular Feat/ability, your DM will let you make changes based on how things go.

For example, my roommate took a level in Rogue because we'd lost the player who filled that role. When we got a new player like two weeks later, my husband, the DM, let the roomie re-purpose that level because 1) she hadn't used any of the skills yet in game and 2) it was the nice thing to do.

Meta-gaming is using out-of-character knowledge to solve an in-game problem, like, "the GM is too whipped to kill his wife's character", or, "the GM will totally maim her husband if I tell her she's too soft to do it".

Well yeah, there's that kind of meta-gaming, too. I've had some very funny moments of avoiding meta-gaming, because we've played 3, no 4 now, D&D campaigns that are inter-related. We are either playing the children of previous characters, long-lived enough characters to be in more than one game, or totally new characters. Those of us playing the totally new characters have to watch ourselves, otherwise when we first hear the name of a recurring villain from previous games, we have to keep our mouths shut instead of saying "eek!".

Meta-gaming comes in three varieties:
1. Munchkin behaviour
"But a hobbit/orc crossbreed with a dark elf scimitar, dwarven chain mail and trianing as a ninja is what gives me the most pluses."

The exact origin of the use of the word "munchkin" in this context is something of a mystery. Basically, it's ignoring what makes sense and going with what makes your character awesome.

My character in my wife's game is a paladin of St. Cuthbert. His main weapon is a flamberge, a wavy bladed greatsword. I actually had to use a feat, burning a major character building element, just to be able to use the weapon without penalty. By the numbers, I would've been much better off just wielding a greatsword but a flamberge, an exotic and strange weapon that'll make my character stand out despite his desire to not stand out, makes a lot more sense for the character. That said, I chose the flamberge rather than, say, the greatclub, because it's a better weapon in combat.

2. Headology
See Tongsters's post. You know the players, and you use that knowledge to manipulate the characters and gameplay.

3. Knowing too much
"Ah, a red dragon. They breathe fire and are immune to it - break out the cold spells."

"Your character's a half-orc barbarian with an Intelligence of 5."

"Err . . ."

I can rattle of the page numbers where you can find every reference you need to build an NPC in the Dungeon Masters Guide. I can spot an illithid at 50 yards and I know the defenses of every fiend in the folio. That does not give me the right to use that knowledge in game.

quote:

Originally posted by I'm a pretty boink-boink!:
Meta-gaming is using out-of-character knowledge to solve an in-game problem, like, "the GM is too whipped to kill his wife's character", or, "the GM will totally maim her husband if I tell her she's too soft to do it".

Heh. You wouldn't even have to taunt Jen...if she ever ran a game.

There's also the feeding of cheesy pickup lines, which the person saying them actually believes, so I can't penalize him...

I will likely be the Lawful-only knight-class after all. Apparently there are many ways to be Lawful. Perhaps this is obvious knowledge, but allow me to share with you my joy:

I've just discovered something called Lawful Evil.

No one told me there was an "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."-alignment. The Tywin Lannister, Kenneth Lay, Pontius Pilate, Henry II, Richard Nixon-alignment.

When honor is at stake, be chivalrous. When it benefits me, act on the law. In the public eye, play to the mob. But when unconstrained by expectations, be expedient.

My only fear is that the character that results might be too similar to the one I play at work.

quote:

Originally posted by Priest.:
I will likely be the Lawful-only knight-class after all. Apparently there are many ways to be Lawful. Perhaps this is obvious knowledge, but allow me to share with you my joy:

I've just discovered something called Lawful Evil.

No one told me there was an "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."-alignment. The Tywin Lannister, Kenneth Lay, Pontius Pilate, Henry II, Richard Nixon-alignment.

When honor is at stake, be chivalrous. When it benefits me, act on the law. In the public eye, play to the mob. But when unconstrained by expectations, be expedient.

My only fear is that the character that results might be too similar to the one I play at work.

Well then, you certainly won't be much like Renley. He seemed pretty Lawful Neutral/Good, to me. Tywin is one of my favorite characters in those books. His sense of entitlement and greed inform his every move and he is just awesome. The vengeance he takes on his father is priceless.

Sounds like you've already figured out everything you really need to know about D&D.