I’m interested to hear how other gaming groups handle Hunters within a game of political relationships.

I’m interested to hear how other gaming groups handle Hunters within a game of political relationships.

I’m interested to hear how other gaming groups handle Hunters within a game of political relationships.

I can understand how to square the NPC Oracles’ future-telling with the fact that not every Threat is preemptively dispensed with. That takes a minute to think through, but is ultimately pretty manageable.

Regarding the Hunters, though: it seems that having someone keep “a seat at the table” when that someone “wants to kill some or all of the people at the table” is a tough needle to thread.

Even setting aside a formal City Council or UN Security Council style structure, my feeling is an informal political ecosystem would be tough to maintain. “Yeah, she killed some of my pack members back in ’87, but ultimately she’s a pretty decent person” sort of things emerge

(apologies if this has been discussed previously)

6 thoughts on “I’m interested to hear how other gaming groups handle Hunters within a game of political relationships.”

  1. Our Fae Hunter learn the hard way that some treaties can not be broken.

    She hunted down a group of fae just to be teached by the werewolves that such an action could break the balance in the city. At that time there was a peace treaty between fae and werewolves.

    After that a NPC werewolf hunter come to the city looking for a friend of our hunter.

    Things scalated quickly and a war started between werewolf hunters and werewolves. Even worst, the PC Fae hunter saw herseld fighting the “fellow” (werewolf) hunters side by side with the fae ^_^

    When the campaign end she was shocked by her new status and is no more a fae hunter… just a hunter who defends humans from supernatural creatures out of control.

  2. Our Hunter set up a backstory where they are hunting demons, a more specific demon: Legion. It’s a classic “family killed by demons, out for bloody vengeance” story. Legion is well entrenched and, well, they are many, so the Hunter needs alliances.

    Plus, since this Hunter has a very specific long term goal for their hunts, they can form other other alliances, even a shaky one with a vampire.

    So, one suggestion is to make sure it’s not “I hunt everybody” but “I hunt these specific things, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” and then they get a seat at the table.

  3. So a hunter might decide that the people at the table can get her access to even worse baddies to kill. Access to particular factions or organizations that require playing nice. It’s all about politics and what the current group of people can do for you. Also, what happens if the current vampire at the table saved the hunter from a demon and now the hunter owes the vamp a debt. There are tons of reasons. Also, at some point, maybe there is some pvp

  5. I disallowed Hunter as a starting archetype for this reason; I thought it presented challenges that would be better handled by players with a sense of the setting in mind already. The closest we have is a Veteran who was “the kid” on a team of hunters that all died and did some questionable things to members of Night back in the day, and now has enough distance to recognize that the social and political landscape of the city requires a more nuanced understanding.

Comments are closed.