Celtricia...in small, bite sized chunklets

[LordVreeg]

AS specified in the OP...

[blockquote=Me.]So A new experiment, with a new, 'Meta' twist. I'm going to post on pretty precise topics, about why I did the things I did in my setting design, and ask for opinions and how people answered the same question themselves.[/blockquote]

Up for discussion...Power levels, mortality, the narrative...and my opionins.  I will sort of apologize in advance, as I have some long-standing opinions about this.

beyond l30 in 4e

we'll start with this link that talks about the challenge levels of orcus (nocaps needed, D&D has made fighing gods common) and scuh, and the blithe idiocy of the conversation of how cool it is that the 'cap' of 30 levels is a soft one.  

Nifty.

I am trying to be as fair and even handed as possible, using all the historical and legendary backgrounds that mythologize the taking down of gods by mortals, which gives a great precedent, to Beren and Luthien's battles with the Valar Melkor.  

But I have to say personally I created my own rulesets becasue of my perception (back in the AD&D days) that the system created wild power inequities far to quickly.  I will be more forthcoming and say that when  was much younger, I was invited to observe a group where they wanted me to GM sometimes, in Nashua, where all the PCs were playing 9th-15th level chaarcters that they had been playing for 3 months.  I made no friends after we got in an argument of how ridiculous this was, becoming that powerful after playing 10-12 sessions.  I had already started the basics for guildschool, but that experience totally reinfiorced trying to create a game that made a sword stroke from a beginning character something of a threat to a pc played for a year or so.  

And now I find the most distributed game system on the planet babling about epic destinies for every character.  I am not going to win any freinds, but are they no aiming for the under 10 crowd as their primary audience?

This touches (unfortunately) onto that 'gritty' conversation we have had a few times before. I will add to this later, but what are your thoughts on epic power, abotu fighting gods, about the growth curve for pcs, and where do you see a PC group after 10 sessions, or after 20?

[Mason]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4th ed. says somewhere that it takes about 8-10 encounters to advance a level. How many encounters can you get to a session? I usually played three to four hour sessions and rarely got my pcs to more than three encounters. I think it averaged out to about two or three sessions to level. So one session a week. Roughly a month to reach a new level.

As an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

[Pair o' Dice Lost]

As an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

3e and prior assumed you started out just like everyone else, and reached hero status around 5th-6th level for 3e, 7th-9th for 1e and 2e.

[LordVreeg]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4th ed. says somewhere that it takes about 8-10 encounters to advance a level. How many encounters can you get to a session? I usually played three to four hour sessions and rarely got my pcs to more than three encounters. I think it averaged out to about two or three sessions to level. So one session a week. Roughly a month to reach a new level.

As an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

Ah.  Heroes.  Good term.
So a month per level was how it worked out.  What was a threat to the pc's at the beginning?  How about after a few months?  WHat level did they get to?

I'm not being facetious at all.  I just am curious how different GMs and players view this.  George (a pc) was killed last night during play, taking 42 hits of damage, 38 after armor protection.  He had 29 HP, the most in the Igbarian group, and he'd been played about 2 years.  He started with 18 HP.  Now true, that group plays once every three weeks, so we are probably at 24-25 sessions of George.  At 29 hp, and with armor, he was pretty much anytrhing but a pretty wel rolled weapon shot, though even simple magic could have made up the difference.  A war hammer does 3d6+20 damage, divided by a d4.  So a war hamemr, even unmoded can still do up to 38 hits of damage.

But that's my take, my ogres have axes that do (3d6+28/d4)+5, and stone giant halbard will do (2d12+32/d3)+9.  Big creatures have the advantage of physics, in Guildschool.  
I think some of this comes down to threat level, as well as the story we want to tell.  Sarisa, what was the relationship with your players and the local toans and cities?  Were your pc's well known, or did they become that way?

[Lmns Crn]

Ah. Heroes. Good term.
So a month per level was how it worked out. What was a threat to the pc's at the beginning? How about after a few months? WHat level did they get to?

The deal about D&D4 and "players being heroes, right from level 1" is in reaction to the severe fragility of low-level characters in 3rd Ed. and earlier. For example, in 3rd Ed., there were some pretty well-known "theorycrafting" examples of Average 1st Level Wizard vs. Average Housecat where things tended to go hilariously, shamefully bad for the poor wizard. There was a strong sentiment that even at low levels, you shouldn't be dying to housecats. That's the underpinnings of the "heroes even at level 1" idea in 4E.

It should be noted that "heroes" in this instance seems to imply basic competence, not fame.

There's a lot to be said here about power curves, and I want to go in that direction (partly to bring Celtricia back to rightful prominence in this conversation.) I tend to like power curves that are "flatter," whether they're high and flat or low and flat. That is to say, even as characters learn and practice and progress, they never become so powerful that they're able to completely shrug off things that were once threats.

Celtricia/Guildschool seems to enjoy using a power curve that is, in my newly-coined parlance, low and flat. Beginning characters can easily be killed by an unlucky strike from one weapon. Older and much more powerful characters have that same risk, and must still be cautious in combat. There's never (as far as I can tell) any point where anybody can just waltz, carefree and smiling, through a raging battlefield, no matter how awesome they are.

Because of those deliberate design decisions (and importantly, because of the way the Guildschool mechanics support them), Celtricia has a certain, defining feel to it. Among other things, it's known for being an unforgiving and deadly sort of world. It's got reputation, which more than anything else, is the coin we trade in around here.

[LordVreeg]

Calendars and Versimilitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Todays topic comes from a little exchange between myself and two other stalwarts of this site...in other words, this expiditious expounding is all based on the good guys.  Nastiness belongs elswhere.

At question is the utility and use of setting specific calendars vs. the utility and lack of clutter that goes with sticking close to what people already use on a consious and subconsious basis.  

And I freely admit that most of us GM games, so there is no right answer.  There is merely the right answer for you to GM and what you want to get out of it.

However, this is a Celtrician thread.  And in my long experience in running this setting, it comes down to this.  The more in depth and 'realized' the written setting, the more likely it is to have it's own timekeeping specific to the cultures involved.  It actually breaks the feeling of reality if this alien world with alien cultures with unique deities and carefully thought out cultures has a calendar based on the Julian and Gregorian ones of our earth.  Might as well have Emperor Bob Jones.  How alien and exotic.  
My players, all of them, work with the 6 month (with bridge days in between), 8 weekday calendar created in Vicoria in the Age of Heroes.  We have a current calendar page, one that allows the pc's to be up on the day and upcomijng holidays/holydays.  The Steel Island group is on Lawsak, in Tokush, 895RON.

So, I don't mind being in the minority here, but I view this as a simple litmus test.  Are you creating a full literary-worthy, realized setting, or not?  AS I said upon entry, there is no right answer.  This is MY answer.  But how do others feel about it?

However, as a quick aside...I have NEVER had a problem in this.  My players, everyone, has taken to this luck a duck to water.  The terminlogy, the 8 day week, the names, the years, it has never caused a problem and has only helped the immersion process for my players.  For those who have not had this experience, understand it has been nothing but a joy for me.  My opinion comes from a definitive positive experience.

[LordVreeg]

Good Day, friends and neighbors.

A few months ago, LC and I were bandying about some delectable data about play in the Jade Stage, about what kind of games would be run in that philosophically deep and old demnesne of ancient ork and Cold-Spring Drinkers.
Steerpike regaled us with the 'Goblin' adventure, taking a small and unusual protagonist through the twists and turns of his version of the underworld.
I then started an online game wherein new players learned how to created GuildSchool characters, and did so for more of a traditional Dungeon crawl (most GS games seem to have combat every other or 2-5 sessions).
And finally, Steeprike again brought up a thinking point in his 'Brandybuck' thread, one that brought a smile to many of our faces.  It also suggested a different type of game, one based on gaining comfort and sociability, as well as a reduced level of combat and threat.

Here is a somewhat self-congratulatory excerpt from the Guildschool Character Creation page.  [note=sometimes I get an atitude in my head like I am going to sell this turkey or that someday, this page might be read by dozens of people chossing between different games.  Perhaps it is a result of my misspent youth...[/note]AS this particular thread is about illustrating game design issues and usingf GS as a springboard, I will print a snippet.

[ic=Starting EXP]
Starting EXP guidelines
Guildschool offers tremendous flexibility in the type of campaign or game a GM wants to run.  Both in terms of stating a game or adding a player into an existing game.  And obviously, this holds true for creation.
A GM should look at 2 things when decdiding how close to the normal model to cleave.  The aggragate amount of experperience they want to start a character with, and if they want to set up any restrictions.

A traditional GS game starts PC's with 5000 real EXP+any gotten from social charts.  No less than 5% of the total real exp amount can be put into a skill[1], so no more than 20 skills can be chosen in the beginning (and no one should every do that anyways.)  Also, a beginning character may only choose commonality 1 (basic) skills, not sub skills and dropdowns.  Those are advanced, 'graduate' level skills.

A GM has to think of starting exp as how much time and exposure the character has had put into their skills.  A young character might have less, an older character, more.

Now, in an old Miston Game, Brian wanted to push the system a bit and create a real commoner.  So we decided that since he was young, he'd have only 4k starting exp, no magic skills, no more than level 1 in any combat skill, and no esoterics.  Basically, he ended up creating Drono Biddlebee the hobyt Commoner, a simple peasant of the Turniper's Commune (which is was and is a playable school).  We let him do L2 HP (I think it was 10 he ended up with), L1 basic Spear (he used a pitchfork, literally), l1 Bow, l1 basic defence.  The rest (about 2200exp) went into Farming, Cooking (he was hired by the Miston group as a porter and cook), basic Outdoor (tracking was useful), etc.

We also had Cassius, an escaped Omwo~ slave from the Argussian Empire, only 29 years old (very young for Omwo~).  Similarly, he was allowed 3700 starting EXP, no magic, and very basic weapon trainging, but allowed l2 HP as he had been toughened up by the slave life.  He asked if he could take basic ettiquite, saying he had served in a wealthy house, I allowed him a will save +20%, which he succeeded in.  But almost all the skills were menial and artisan, though I will say he played that basic ettiquite to the hilt...

Characters that come into a group later can be given similar bonbuses to starting exp, to account for the group going out and finding a peer or at least someone more useful to them.
[/ic]

So, my question/issue at hand is...

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?  
3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both?  What changes might you make?

[LordVreeg]

Some topics get responses, some do not.
That's OK.

Today's Topic...
"Have you explained why it/they are there?"

You've written a setting.  You've written some adventures.  The players have run into a prototypical monster or item...let's say it's a fantasy world, and they run into an Owlbear.

and then a PC asks 'why in heck there are Owlbears in the world...'?

This could be said for many races or technologies or items.  But especially with the ecology of a setting, this is one of those places that could build versimilitude and player buy-in, or it's one of those awkward GM fumbling moments.  I had it happen early on with Armor, since Celtricia has some armors and some variations that are not actually real-world perfect, but are things that certain races used heavily, like the Igboniat and Marcher early Plate-lamellar combos, also used later by the Venolvians.  It's not traditional pure lamellar, it's got some heavy plates and uses overlapping metal plates in the flexible areas.  Chain leather (hard leather with Chain mail attached onto the choulders and chest) is also a creation of the Celtrician world, which came out of Silverwood.  
Once the PCs (my SCA guys, especially) that Celtricia had an internal logic and history that was not totally derived from real earth, they had a greater buy-in to Celtricia.

So this post is, I guess, about setting-internal cconsistency, especially with things the PCs have dseen in other games.  I love turning things on their head and giving my own spin.  So my owlbears are creations of the mad Artificer Korang Jerupizer, from Venolvia (who also made horned bears, in case my players were wondering).  But instead of their existence making Celtricia just another vanilla setting, having setting-consistent reasoning for their existence elevates the setting beyond vanilla, as well as turning the familiar into a logical part of your world.

That is my take.  I'd love to get some feedback on what other creators do with making things familiar to a genre your own, or if this is something you are in the process of doing.

[Lmns Crn]

I like this thread. It's a great design philosophy resource.

Gonna browse through and look at some of the topics here and find some to reply to. (I think I'm actually going to start with the penultimate one, now that today's bump has brought it to my attention.)

So, my question/issue at hand is...

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?
3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

prepared[/i] to handle, rather than what it is currently running.

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?

2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not? [/quote]actual, literal[/i] backstabbing, that's okay too, but not requisite.) Could do political games in the Cardan Vine Council or just about anywhere in Ithyria (for extra cutthroat-ness), mob-style crime/government games with the power players in Yolek-Ja, cranial craftiness games in academic institutions like the Arcane Academy or the Royal Chreotechnic Order (ain't no drama like collegiate faculty drama, cause collegiate faculty drama gots tenure), and so on.

There's a lot of room for young sorcerors to have heartfelt coming-of-age stories of friendship and self-discovery while they study for next week's arcane theory test, sneak chapters from Tomes of Forbidden Knowledge, battle unnatural monsters and/or acne, and try to catch the eye of that cute girl from class. It's a silly and lighthearted take on the Jade Stage, but I think it'd work-- I just haven't explored it at all, yet.

3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

almost[/i] anything I could throw at it, but I haven't yet explored all of my options. My upcoming revisions should add a little more polish and shine, and make it even better-equipped to run the Jade Stage.

[LordVreeg]

I think I might keep these questions around.  They do work well.

[blockquote=LC]1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
Right now, the richest soil seems to be physical conflict, on a small scale right up to a very large one. There's war going on currently, more war incipient, rebellion being plotted in Imperial colonies, weakened kingdoms fighting off marauding barbarians-- all that nice 'n good stuff. If you don't like mixing combat with politics, you can mix it with exploration instead, and get annual troll-hunting expeditions every autumn, hideous monsters from the Wilding Fen, and potentially very scare things Underneath the world. [/blockquote]
Sounds like you have a few ideas here.  Have you written down background notes on a sample advnture or small early story arc?

[blockquote=LC]2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?
I feel like it would be a lot of fun to play a mostly social game, without much combat "built in". There are plenty of places where a nation or guild provides ample places for political maneuvering, with backstabbing nobles/courtiers/organizers and some serious Jane Austen style shit, yo. (If it degenerates into actual, literal backstabbing, that's okay too, but not requisite.) Could do political games in the Cardan Vine Council or just about anywhere in Ithyria (for extra cutthroat-ness), mob-style crime/government games with the power players in Yolek-Ja, cranial craftiness games in academic institutions like the Arcane Academy or the Royal Chreotechnic Order (ain't no drama like collegiate faculty drama, cause collegiate faculty drama gots tenure), and so on.

There's a lot of room for young sorcerors to have heartfelt coming-of-age stories of friendship and self-discovery while they study for next week's arcane theory test, sneak chapters from Tomes of Forbidden Knowledge, battle unnatural monsters and/or acne, and try to catch the eye of that cute girl from class. It's a silly and lighthearted take on the Jade Stage, but I think it'd work-- I just haven't explored it at all, yet.[/blockquote]
I tend to see my adventures and story arcs from a literary standpoint.
I also notice that the PCs in SI are the kind I like, because they seem to be adventuring as a means.  Hamish moving up in his guilds was a big deal, as was Chorbit taking the group moreseriously after they got back.  Social roleplaying is never going to replace adventuring; but it does place adventuring (as I noted) as a means, not an end.
Lov the coming-of-age idea.  Just love it.  I think you, if anyone could pull it off.


[blockquote'LC]3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?
I think so!

I'm currently grappling with a lot of possible changes I might make, after seeing how FATE System is used for the Dresden Files RPG (it feels so different from FATE in Spirit of the Century-- a testament to the versatility of the system).

Some of these changes are pretty minor and peripheral (I might add/change a few stunts, etc.) while others are more sweeping and profound (possibly reorganizing/recombining skills, character generation/aspect changes, possibly adding a third stress track, changing the way consequences work for added lethality, weapons and armor, etc.)

So, long-story-short, I think the system is currently pretty good and can handle almost anything I could throw at it, but I haven't yet explored all of my options. My upcoming revisions should add a little more polish and shine, and make it even better-equipped to run the Jade Stage.[/blockquote]
I am looking forward to seeing this.  I really want to too if the amount of mechanic in social situations is as much as combat, and how PC progress is tracked through a lengthy campaign.

[Lmns Crn]

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
Right now, the richest soil seems to be physical conflict, on a small scale right up to a very large one. There's war going on currently, more war incipient, rebellion being plotted in Imperial colonies, weakened kingdoms fighting off marauding barbarians-- all that nice 'n good stuff. If you don't like mixing combat with politics, you can mix it with exploration instead, and get annual troll-hunting expeditions every autumn, hideous monsters from the Wilding Fen, and potentially very scare things Underneath the world. [/blockquote]
Sounds like you have a few ideas here.  Have you written down background notes on a sample advnture or small early story arc?

wiki page with some sample adventure ideas[/url] put down in general terms, as an inspiration to potential Jade Stage dabblers.

Conflict[/url], just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.

[Weave]

So, my question/issue at hand is...

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?

sense[/i] for things to vanish and appear overnight, though I never make it on such grand a scale. Now, and island will appear overnight, not a continent or country. Cities won't disappear, but small towns might appear somewhere across the map. Because of all this, I think Avernus lends itself quite well to exploration; allow me to explain. To keep the sheer wonderlandishness of my world from collapsing due to its own instability, I created Watchers, people who remember the land and oversee it night and day from high towers spread across the wilderness. The land only shifts when there's no one around to see it. I based it off of my own personal experiences in dreams: when I look at something, it never changes, but I might look behind me and find that my living room wall has turned into a giant jungle. In this sense, players who wish to explore might reclaim abandoned watch towers and guide the Watchers to it. They might set up one of their own from scratch, or they may simply wander into the unknown with the risk of never finding their way back. Because the land requires so much maintenance, most of it hasn't been explored, let alone mapped (and good luck mapping something that moves!).

Whew! That took longer than I thought to explain, but Avernus isn't ONLY made for exploration, so I'll try and shorten up the others. I'm a man who likes challenges, so I've always been fond of the more "difficult" types of campaigns to run, particularly mystery, political intrigue, and horror, to name a few. Horror works exceptionally well in Avernus because its easy to fit a nightmarish landscape into a dreamworld. It's not so much about the "pop-out" scary stuff, but more about the freaky, bizarre, and disturbing things. Political intrigue is always interesting because I enjoy the challenge of thinking how humans and other civilized races would try and colonize a world so erratic and bizarre. This includes the political machinations and repercussions for establishing a colony in places that might not exist the next day, dealing with new and unique resources like crystallized memories, and simply deciphering the motives of the strange allies and enemies they'll come across. Mystery is something I haven't gotten to do yet, but I think it would provide a unique medium in Avernus such that it would truly interest your standard "Sherlock" character, what with all the crazy stuff that goes on here.

Forgive me if I've made Avernus to sound like a truly crazy-bizarro world... its actually a lot more stable than I describe it to be, and part of the challenge of making a setting is balancing what your players want and what you, the GM, wants. As a result, I still have the classic staple races of fantasy, but they all have some unique schticks, such as Dwarves mining for memories rather than gold or silver. Some might find that limiting, but I enjoy the challenge. That said...

2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?

love[/i] GMing.

ANYWAYS... I'd love to play in your standard, classic fantasy game. You heard me. Give me the princess to save from the dragon, or the Merlin character to teach me wizardry. I want to play the cliches because I've never gotten to. Give me the standard setting, let me kill all the orcs, and  go to the next room in the dungeon, dammit. I want my +1 Greataxe.

But that might get old fast. I love roleplaying, so any setting that gives me a chance to look at things from a new perspective makes me happy. When it turns out the orcs I've been killing are actually trying to prevent me from awakening some terrible demon, then I have the fun chance at questioning my characters morals and interacting with what the party should do. I feel like I can shape the decision of the campaign and determine its outcome. It's the "T" of the campaign, when you've been going down a linear path to hit the one that lets you choose which way to go. I like that! In that sense, it isn't really the campaign or setting that concerns me, but the skill of the GM. THATS the game I wanna be in.

3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

I'm[/i] capable of. I must embarrassingly admit that I tried running a pirate themed campaign twice now, and "failed" both times (as in, my players didn't find it piratey enough, so we switched gears). I guess I need to go watch some more pirate films. I can proudly say I've done a very successful horror campaign amidst an insane asylum, a four-year spanning evil campaign (one of my best to date; I have my players to thank for that one for keeping it civil and mature), and I'm going on to finally do a real exploration campaign with some political intrigue thrown into the mix. Should be fun!

[Weave]

Conflict[/url], just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.

You had me at "hello." Seriously, that sounds awesome! You'll have to forgive me, I'm heavily inexperienced for anything outside of, well, basic D&D. I'd love to get my hands on this and try it out, though.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Mighty LC][blockquote=Vreeg the Bloody]I am looking forward to seeing this. I really want to too if the amount of mechanic in social situations is as much as combat, and how PC progress is tracked through a lengthy campaign.[/blockquote]
One of the nice things about FATE is that it's pretty much got one game mechanic, total, that just happens to be really flexible. A fistfight and a social conflict use exactly the same system, just with different skills being used, and different kinds of aspects/consequences.

So if you wanted to run, for example, an argument between two scheming nobles who are both trying to sway the same council, you run it as a Conflict, just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.[/blockquote]
So does the PC progress in ability as they go on?  What is the curve of improvement?  What is the gradiation you have planned?

[LordVreeg]

here [/url], especially since we have temporarily lost Limetom.  
Though in my book, 1/2 of the skill of the GM is creating the setting and campaign.

3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

I'm[/i] capable of. I must embarrassingly admit that I tried running a pirate themed campaign twice now, and "failed" both times (as in, my players didn't find it piratey enough, so we switched gears). I guess I need to go watch some more pirate films. I can proudly say I've done a very successful horror campaign amidst an insane asylum, a four-year spanning evil campaign (one of my best to date; I have my players to thank for that one for keeping it civil and mature), and I'm going on to finally do a real exploration campaign with some political intrigue thrown into the mix. Should be fun!

Vreeg's first rule of setting design is, "Make sure the system you choose for your game matches the game and setting you want to play and create, or the game and setting WILL eventually match the ruleset."

I don't have doubts about your setting, though I worry about the ability to create focus.  We'll see if Pathfinder works for you.  Make all the changes you need to the rules, though, becasue I really believe that the more individual the setting, the less some generic set of rules will actually reflect the feel GM wants.

Nothing wrong with some failures; it happens to all of us.  That is what much of the learning process is about.  If fear of failure had stopped you from trying, you'd have never learned some of what was not working.  I'd love to hear about the evil campaign, since I believe these can be fun as well as psychologically rewarding.  

Make sure the dream stunting is rare and high level.  What powers all of this, anyway?