Every year I throw a Halloween LARP/party where theres sort of

Amendment: I just don't want someone to get busted and killed at 10pm. Thats no fun.

A nerf shootout sounds baller, but if there's only one fed on a "team" by himself, wouldn't physical conflict resolution be kinda one-sided? Maybe everyone will be too drunk to be salty by then, but that poor dude is just gonna get bodied by a sea of foam darts

>>49621833
Have a violin case with a nerf rifle in it in clear view.

As tensions go up there is nothing stopping anyone from taking the gun to shoot a supsected fed.

It'll make things more nervous.

Though what you can do is have 4 friends who arent going to the party dress in police gear and "Search the Area" Forcing them all to scramble to hide evidence away and hid in the secret room in the basement while boots stomp over head and tear the place into easily cleaned up shreds.

>>49621833
I post this a lot, but look up some pre-made Murder Mystery Dinner packs.

>>49621930

Good point. As the GM I'll make it an option but I'll do my best to make it so its in no ones best interest. Rail roading toward a particular resolution is a bad idea.

But I want there to instill a conflict and a sense of urgency on the players.

>>49621945
That is not a bad idea.

Actually as I'm typing this --
I should tell them all murder is allowed.
If you get killed you're dead and out of the game.

Obviously you're still there and can chill and party.
But you can no longer interfere with game mechanics.

Maybe that could work

>>49621930
If it gets out that he's the fed, and the only fed, and he can't drop the hot potato into someone's lap, he's a shitty player and should be (nerf) shot.

>>49623240
>if you die in the game
>you die in real life

>>49621930
don't forget that there is a chance that someone want's all the loot for himself.

OP, put candies and various snacks in the loot too, so players will really have a motivation to want them all to themselves.

File: 1388576917483.jpg (43KB, 467x488px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 467x488px

also if you trust your players that they won't share their character backstories to the others you can go full silly on them by making EVERYONE an undercover agent like in pic related

>>49623612

The candy thing. I like the way you think.

And yeah. I've assigned one person the task of getting all the loot for themselves.

Its up to them how they do it.

>>49623666

Well the Fed is FBI.
Maybe I could make someone else part of another law enforcement agency.

That could be funny.

>>49623692
Have a DEA hellbent on stopping consumption of illegal green candy.

>>49623692
if there is at least three different agencies that don't know about each other you can make one of them corrupt too who wants to get some of the stash and blame the others for it.

Also what you need is internal conflict that will make the things roll. That doesn't mean serious conflict though, just things that people will argue over or objectives that clash, but not life-and-death stuff.
There could be argument about how to use the stash, maybe hints that the lookout wasn't killed just injured and nobody went back to him, maybe hints that he was indeed killed but one of your own (although that's a very serious stuff but if the characters have questionable morals then it can fly)

etc

>>49623735

Shit maybe -- .The 60s and 70s were An era of renegade cops and vigilante men in fiction.

Fuck now I'm hype for this.
I'm still sorting this out with my players so maybe I can assign that to one of them.

its up to them if they want to collect evidence or try to take everyone out.

>>49623787

"maybe hints that the lookout wasn't killed just injured and nobody went back to him, maybe hints that he was indeed killed but one of your own (although that's a very serious stuff but if the characters have questionable morals then it can fly"

Thats what I was planning on doing.
Havn't decided why the lookout died yet.

I've got a few wees to figure it out though.

>>49621833
That sounds great!