In reply to jkeogh (msg # 3):

Thanks. You'll hear about it if I ever pull this together.

Frankly, for a game with "Dragons" in the name, they seem to be pretty rare as enemies, or even as vague threats.

So, I'd like to run some short adventures that involve a group of adventurers tasked with taking on dragon problems in various localities around some more-or-less generic fantasy world.

The set-up could differ with each dragon. Sometimes the party would travel to the dragon, other times it would be on its way to attack their location, maybe sometimes they'd have to chase it, or keep ahead of it for a time.

The risk with a thematic monster is the players picking up items and other options specifically designed to deal with dragons. In this world, the dragons would have seen to it that anti-dragon items are hard to come by, the dragons having either destroyed them and those who know how to make them, or hidden them in their lairs. A dragon never knows when it might have to equip its minions to attack another dragon.

This is definitely a workable idea in 4E. There are enough variations on dragons and dragon-kin to keep a steady supply of threats, even as early as 1st level. Plus there are plenty of character builds and paragon paths that are specifically anti-dragon.

It could also work within the 'points of light' concept, as a land overrun by dragons would have very few pockets of civilization -- and those would have to be heavily fortified. Very few people would be brave (or foolhardy) enough to venture outside, and most of those would be merchants rushing to get to the next town as fast as possible.

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 6):

Yes, I think a dragon-haunted world is definitely on the darker side of points-of-light.

I'd want to strike a balance with characters that were suited for fighting dragons (since such a world would need such individuals) and having the dragons be an actual challenge. I think that's doable, in a number of ways, though the players would have to be amenable to not kicking as much butt as they're truly capable of doing.

In reply to engine (msg # 7):

Reign of Fire style games could definitely be interesting.

I've DMed a setting where a red dragon had conquered a nation and ruled it tyrannically for hundreds of years.  The PCs were members of a rebellion against this dragon queen and there were many draconic and half-draconic children that were governors and underlings in the nation.    In that game, the PCs decided assassination and guerilla warfare were the most effective method of resistance, rarely standing and fighting against any of the dragon's military or police.

That campaign didn't go far enough for the rebellion to be success.  Indeed, it ended when the entire party were KOd in a failed attempt to 'bomb' a "police station" in a small town and awoke in a prison awaiting their presumed execution.  At that time, one of the players moved away (to join the military) and the rest felt discouraged at the idea of trying a prison break so used that player loss as an excuse to start a new campaign with a new player to replace the one lost.  Still, everyone enjoyed the game up to that point.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 8):

"Reign of Fire" occurred to me as a basis, but D&D dragons have much more personality than the ones in that movie.

How would the dragonborn factor into this setting? Would they be the minions of the Dragons or would they be on the side of the oppressed?

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 10):

There would be some of both stripes. The main upshot is that PCs could be dragonborn, but would likely face dragonborn foes. But any creatures could be allies to the dragons, or oppose or hinder the PCs trying to deal with the dragons.

Well once again, pencil me in! I like your game concepts.

Would you do this one with maps or would you allow us to establish the setting ourselves?

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 12):

No maps. And the focus wouldn't be on the world, really. The world would be generic. I mainly want to see people have to deal with dragons, dragon lairs, dragon raids, etc.

Gotcha, Flying can be hard to keep track of, but I'm sure we can work it all out :)

Here's a hypothetical for the group. How viable would a five-man band be if the party lacked a defender? I've got a possible set-up with specific characters: an artificer, cleric, wizard, barbarian, and rogue. So two leaders and two strikers, but no defender. They should be great at mitigating damage (and recovering), plus dishing out damage, but they'd have little aggro control.

Would it be viable over the long term?

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 15):

It depends a bit on how they are built. Clerics can be a little Defender-y. And, if a wizard is built heavy on the Controller side of things, it can help to funnel damage where you need it to you so that the leaders can deal with it...

I was thinking the two leaders would be more like a trapsmith (for the artificer) and a pacifist healer (for the cleric). I have a very specific set of builds in mind here, just getting opinions on its viability.

I think it could work. The barbarian could end up "tanking" for the party.

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 17):

If you have more specific builds in mind, perhaps more detail about them could help us know what is going on in the party and if it's viable?

I can say from experience that the Pacifist Healer concept is interesting for a while, but when played straight it can get frustrating for both the player and his party.  If you're looking at pre-constructing characters, you should make sure there's something else about that one that is interesting to play as/with.

Okay, here's the full elevator pitch. You should be able to figure out the source.

---

Five unlikely companions band together in the aftermath of the Last War, intending on finding everything strange and mysterious in Khorvaire — then poking it with a stick to see what happens. They are:

• Red, a warforged artificer, obsessed with building traps to catch monsters. He's the team leader, the head planner.
• Dafannay, an Aerenal elf priestess of the Silver Flame. A wealthy socialite, she's the team's ethical compass, but more often than not they use her for bait.
• Vellama, a gnome wizard. The team's inquisitive, she has encyclopedic knowledge of monsters, and enough divination spells to fill in the gaps.
• Sh'gae, a human barbarian from the Demon Wastes. Used to foraging and hunting, he's become obsessed with all the mass-produced food -- especially sweets -- that civilization has to offer. His search for the perfect snack tends to lead him face-first into trouble.
• Scûb, a longtooth shifter rogue. Sh'gae's childhood friend, his only concerns in life are his friend's well-being, his next meal, and the Big Score.

Driving their earth-elemental-powered carriage, the Conundrum Contraption, they drive all around Khorvaire, investigating monstrous incursions, Quori possession, religious corruption, and hints as to the cause of the destruction of Cyre.

Hahaha! I think I have seen this write up somewhere else on rpol :). I think it could work. It would be funny. Most of their enemies would be old men in costumes right?

Actually, no, I'd mostly play that part straight. There would be plenty of times where something would turn out to be different than what's apparent, but it wouldn't always be someone in a mask.

Why bother with masks when you have changelings?

Well, in that case...combat doesn't seem likely to be a major component of the game anyway, so the combat balance may be less important.

I think it would be a fascinating group to run and would be a very interesting experiment. Somehow the only two characters that appeal to me are Sh'gae and Scub and I can't tell if that's because of my preference for strikers or my personality as told by who you like from the inspiration of this game.

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 15):

Yes, it would be viable, even if no one did anything to fill in the "gap." I bet they'd be better off focusing on their actual roles than trying to cover for a "missing" role.

I imagine a DM could gin up encounters that would have the group wishing for a defender, but in general, I doubt they'd feel the absence.

I'm probably better off focusing on some of my pressing real-life work right now, but it's also probably good for me to have a creative outlet.

So, is anyone up for running a game? If you have a concept you really want to try as a GM, I want to help you make it work as a player.

For my next game (whenever that might be) I thought I'd take a page from Dungeon World. In that game, a "miss" when attempting something is worth 1 experience point, which is sizeable chunk of what's needed to level. I was thinking about providing experience to the party equal to that of one minion of their level for every missed attack roll (in actual combat, against a known enemy, not just "an invisible foe who might be there"), skill check (within a skill challenge, or otherwise specifically called for by the GM), or saving throw.

I know many people don't mess with experience points at all, and I hear that. I'm not suggesting this for them.

Assuming that tracking this wasn't a burden on anyone involved, how would this sit with you?

I'd like to run a game, and while I don't think I can or want to go full "sandbox" I would like to avoid a "plotted" adventure. My thought is to have a town that is trying to develop and some adventurers from that town who need it to develop both for its own survival and for their ability to develop. It's beset by several concurrent problems (usually of the dangerous monster variety, but not always) which they can choose to deal with or not. These problems will have other problems driving them, and might drive each other to a degree. It will be a never ending struggle for the PCs and the town, but the PCs can pursue goals that give them access to more options and services as they enable the city to grow.

Any interest?