Sorry to say that most of the above interpretations are just to good and not raw imo.  The staff list would be a must list for every spell caster who want to cast effective combat spells, because in the first round of combat you otherwise coulnt cast a spell of your level without danger. We are looking to the store spell and there are a lot of different words used. "The caster can store any one spell in his staff. The spell to be stored must be cast immediately after this spell (within 1 minute). The power point cost of this spell is equal to the level of the store spell plus the cost of the spell to be stored. For example, in order to store a 5th level spell in a magic staff using Staff Spell I is equal to 5 (the level of the spell) + 3 (the level of the store spell) = 8. The caster must spend power points to cast the spell that has been stored --------- you have a max. of 6 round (1minute) to prepare and overcast. You have to use the PP twice, once in casting to the staff and again in using it from the staff, because of the last sentence. So no PP for the next day. Therefore you have to roll for spellfailure once during casting into the staff and again when you attack someone with a bar. Even with this interpretation magic staff and the store spel! are the only possibility for a caster to cast a very high level spell in the first round of combat with only a small chance of spell failure and every player use it... Thanks Tarinia

Social contract checks out. Its a deadly campaign and PC death although rare is always a possibility. The game world is brutal and realistic. Not quite grimdark but there are powerful enemies afoot and the threat of death is always near when you have dangerous enemies.

Fair enough. I don't like PC death as a consequence, because death is not a consequence for the character (because they're dead, duh) - it is a consequence for the player. And I'm not here to make my players suffer and have to throw away a character they like.
So, consequences should affect the characters - which means they have to be alive to feel the weight of what they've done. Which means no dying unless people are monumentally stupid or willingly sacrifice themselves.

This might be unknown to the party and they might unintentionally aid the enemy.

"unintentionally" is in my opinion not something you want to use for major issues. If they release a major threat on the world, better for them to know it beforehand, or at least suspect it enough to consider it a significant risk. Having to choose between condemning their friend to an eternity of suffering or releasing a major demon or alien entity or evil god makes the choice *matter*. If they are unaware until after the deed, it's just you being petty
It's OK for minor things, just a reminder for players to check their six before doing something. But a major consequence ? I think it's much better if they know and choose to do it.

"The En" is what is missing.

Noticed something while reviewing Encumbrance in Core Law, pgs 128-129.  It looks like the start of the text on page 129 is cut-off from previous page.  Was only the first characters cut off, or was a bit of text cut off that should have been there?

Quote from: Druss_the_Legend on April 13, 2024, 02:56:23 AM

I threw them the curveball, now its on them to find a solution right?

Not really. They can try and fail to come up with a solution, and then it's up to *you* to deal with a player who can't play their character for a length of time (or, potentially, permanently - this is the Void we are talking about, honestly, when I read the first line of your post, my first thought was "OK, the PC is dead and unresurrectable, what are we going to talk about ?").

I think of your situation exactly as a lethal trap: as a GM you designed it, so you knew there was a chance for one or more PCs to fall in it and die. That's not the players' fault if they fail their RRs or perception rolls.

Let's get back to your options. I think what they lack mostly is bite - something meaningful. Maybe it's only the way you present them, but I am under the impression that this is only an occasion for an additional side quest, but that the PCs will be essentially the same (and potentially a bit more powerful) after the rescue and the favour. I am also under the impression that you consider that saving the trapped PC is an automatic choice.
And I think it does the situation a disservice and reduces their agency even more than having a PC essentially out because of bad luck at dice.

In light of that, I would refrain from your options 2 and 3.
- option 2 because it reeks of McGuffin deus ex machina and your players were not the one to come up with the idea. Additionally, you will have to find a way to dispose of the artifact after the deed, and unless you are quite creative, your players will be in their right to ask such questions as "OK, now we know it is possible to create actifacts to boost one's power, why don't we acquire a few of those - and about that, how come most powerful NPCs do not have some already - including some that they don't use anymore becaus they have out-powered them ?". Suspension of disbelief is more difficult to maintain the more McGuffins you add to a campaign (my personal upper limit is either zero or one).
- option 3 is a problem because, why would the powerful NPC wizard do them a favour that they could not repay in kind ? If they require a mage much more powerful than they are, the mage would likely ask for a favour that requires a power higher than *his/her own* in exchange. The deal is only fair if they are approximately the same level (and then it's not a question of power but a question of specialisation).
A more interesting alternative would be to have the mage require a bit more than a favour - retainer service for a length of time. "I will do what you want, but I want your complete obedience for the next five years - you will do as I say, no questions asked and no wiggling out of the deal". And then the mage sends them away to do the things s/he wants done but does not have the time or patience to do him/herself, or because s/he wants deniable assets, times and again. It makes an interesting source of future adventures but the thing is, they must feel the sting of being essentially owned for a time. No time out for family or personal matters, no refusing something because of personal beliefs or ideals - they do the deed and take the blame when appropriate.
Option 1 is essentially a nasty form of the revised option 3, but I don't like it either in the form you suggest. Once again, we are talking about a very powerful and alien entity. The entity will demand a price a bit higher than anything the PCs would accept. It will ask for obedience. It will ask for subservience, for continuing service. It can sweeten the pot a bit to push them, but basically, a demon or a god wants either minions, souls, or both - and preferably both, and will try to trick them for it (and likely succeed if they are desperate for help). If it requires only temporary service, be sure to include such a service as they would likely *not* undertake on their own free will. Furthermore, the entity is not dumb, so it will ensure that the PCs cannot weasel out of the service afterwards - it would likely require them to fulfil the service *first*, and when the service is to release a demonic entity, ancient undead spirit of a powerful magical tyrant, or god of strife, do you really want to do that *before* it has helped you, or even at all ?

The key idea is to offer them a choice with a cost: you can save your friend, but you will hate what you have to do to save them. Or you can choose not to save them, but you will always hate yourself for not doing it. In other words, do you value your integrity more than friendship ?

And *that* is an interesting quandary. True character, as the saying goes, is what you are in the dark. Regardless of their choice, they will have the scars to prove it. The consequences are more than just another adventure. We are talking about loss, about growth through adversity.

But I hope for you that you forewarned your players about the risk of arbitrary loss of character during a campaign (because of bad luck). If the social contract is agreed by all parties involved, then it's fair. If it was not the shared agreement, then you are in trouble. I know that my campaigns are not based on such a contract.

Appreciate the input. Lots of food for thought here.
Servatitude to a powerful wizard would work. They are already allied with a faction of magicians, albeit lawful ones. Could be a mage in the guild who dabbles in darker magic or one that would undertake the task for a price.
Social contract checks out. Its a deadly campaign and PC death although rare is always a possibility. The game world is brutal and realistic. Not quite grimdark but there are powerful enemies afoot and the threat of death is always near when you have dangerous enemies.
A McGuffin of sorts already exists as part of the lore of the world. There are 5 Soul Stones, artefacts created by an ancient order of magicians and these were used to entrap and banish a cabal of Vampire Lords. There were Lesser Soul Stones, early versions of the Soul Stones and these were tested on dangerous individuals in liege with the vampire lords. I think the party could find a Lesser Soul Stone and use it to open a pathway into the Void. They have an NPC magician in the party and her powers could be boosted by such an item although I'd expect it to be a risky spell as it might allow any entity already in the Void to escape. This might be unknown to the party and they might unintentionally aid the enemy.
Perhaps the Void is in reality a Soul Stone prison. This was my initial intention with the trap. This plot line gives the party a new quandary... Find the stone which is in the dungeon they are exploring and puzzle out how to free the PC from their prison. Doing so could also add the complication of freeing an enemy... probably a magician and most likely an evil one... but a fun twist might be its an ally and they are in dept to the party for freeing them...