|
Dreams can't always be controlled. If they want to do crazy poo poo, Id throw a will roll in there to see if they can harness the power of the mind to use the dreamscape, because it's not their own.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
MrMortimer posted:Dreams can't always be controlled. If they want to do crazy poo poo, Id throw a will roll in there to see if they can harness the power of the mind to use the dreamscape, because it's not their own. If the lucid dreaming thread in GBS is any indication, they'll just shoot the dragon with guns and immediately start loving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
As a background, I'm planning to run an Eberron game in a couple of months. Haven't even recruited the players yet, so this is all very early planning stage theoretical crap. So, we all know railroading is bad, and forcing decisions openly ("Nuh-uh, your character doesn't do that, he does this.") is just downright terrible... But can a DM get away with it in the opening session if it's being set up as a "guys, this is your introduction into the world. It's a single railroady session, then you are free to do what you like"? Of course, there will be a fluff explanation of why the DM "controls" the players to some extent. The basic premise, without giving anything away with regards to overarching plans, is to have the PC's start the game under the control of a shadowy organisation of some kind. Crystal amulets around their necks compelling them to follow orders from the badguy lieutenan. The idea is for the first session to be them on a mission somewhere for the guys controlling them. Some how they unavoidably end up losing the amulets (broken, taken off of them, countered by a spell, no idea yet, but unavoidable), remember their own pasts but very little of what happened to them since they were wearing the amulets. From that point they are free. Of course, I could start the game with "You wake up in the dungeon, the hazy memory of how you got there fading from your mind." A sort of "after all that happens" sort of thing. That way there is no railroading of actual play. I just think it'd play out cooler if I can take their sheets and say "Okay, you've been sent in here to retrieve the [artifact]. As you step through the portal into their base, you see [enemies]. roll for initiative!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
I'm having some problems with 4e skill challenges. Not the normal ones, because I'm not retarded, but sort of problematic: The players are good. I mean, really good. They each have two or three skills that they are astoundingly good at (like, a +18 at 11th level). The problem is that the guide says a "hard" DC for their level's skill challenge is around 21. Well, that means that each player has a skill that they hit on a 3 or 4. Now, obviously the players want their characters to be good at something, and they've taken feats to do so. I'm fine with that. But my options are, "PCs breeze through every skill challenge, which is supposed to equal the fighting of four monsters" and "tailor skill challenge to be specifically unfriendly to their skills" I know about only allowing X successes with each skill, but it seems like in a diff 4 encounter (8 before 3), the party will start with 3-5 successes without really trying, lowering skill challenges from "roleplaying opportunity" to "just botch already to get back to the bard's turn" What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
You're not using the Obsidian Skill Challenge System http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/241440-stalker0s-obsidian-skill-challenge-system-new-version-1-2-a.html I found it to be a much better system. For starters, they get rid of the punishment for failing a roll - You get three rounds, and need X successes in those three rounds. It splits the skills up into different types - mental, physical, and social, and you should only rarely allow them to go outside of it. I found it to be a lot more enjoyable using that system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Masonity posted:As a background, I'm planning to run an Eberron game in a couple of months. Haven't even recruited the players yet, so this is all very early planning stage theoretical crap. The second option sounds fine to me. Honestly, the players should be mature enough to accept the reasonable restrictions of your setting and scenario and try to tailor their characters to that. Yes, let them go wild and play their characters, but put your foot down whenever someone's actions interfere with the group's fun. Rich Burlew puts this better than I could in this article for players: quote:Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:I'm having some problems with 4e skill challenges. I, too, find skill challenges as written to be uneventful. I've been doing something else instead--no criteria for failure, the players just have to accumulate a set number of successes--I run a six person party, and I tend to go for six successes. But every time they make a roll, succeed or fail, I charge a healing surge. As a for example, recently the party was building lightning rail through the wilds of Droam, and because of eminent domain they were in a dead heat race with a group of dutch warforged, so I wasn't giving them a chance to go for extended rests. I just went around the table, pointing at each player and challenging them. "Wildfires have been spotted about a mile to the east of the rail you're building, coming your way." "A small orcish warcamp has declared they don't want your devil trains on their land, stealing their souls." "No fewer than seventeen ancient ruins have been spotted along the planned route, and the workers are worried about undead attacks." Then they'd respond to the challenge. If a player didn't feel confident about handling a problem, they could ask someone else to jump in, but they'd both lose a healing surge due to the exhaustion of hauling rear end to wherever the problem was. If each player manages to use their skills in a clever and successful manner, everyone's down one healing surge, they get exp for overcoming a level appropriate encounter, and the adventure proceeds from there. If they botch a few rolls, they're a little more tired. And if they rely on the thief to do everything for them, he's friggin' exhausted for the rest of the adventure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:I'm having some problems with 4e skill challenges. Bit of a rambling response here, sorry. I'm still trying to work out skill challenges myself, but I think there's a valid comparison here with combat. In earlier editions, combat was off-balance in much the same way as you're describing: a few players with skill sets who could shut down things unless the encounter was specifically tailored to eliminate their strengths. Now, most of that was down to poor design, but there was another big factor: the lack of a map. Without the map, it was easy for the wizard to declare "I drop a fireball," and the fight was over. With a map, though, it becomes clear that dropping a fireball isn't a trivial thing you can do whenever you want: the party has to work to get everything into a place where the fireball will work. So my intuition is that what skill challenges need is the equivalent of a tactical map: that is, something that makes the players have to work to get into a position where their characters can use their skills. One aspect of this is requiring successes to "unlock" other skills. So maybe the bard has +18 to Diplomacy, but who is he going to be diplomatic at? He needs to speak to the lord of the castle, but the guards at the gate aren't going to let him -- their orders are to keep people out unless they have a castle seal. Maybe Thievery can let them forge a seal, or Streetwise might find a guard amenable to bribing, or Athletics and Stealth to climb the wall. Maybe History to find some legal precedent to let them in. The idea is to define an end-goal, and then have the players construct a narrative that allows them to use skills in order to move towards that goal. To make it work, you'd have to let go the whole "eight successes before three failures" thing, except as a design guideline. For a difficult encounter, you want to aim for a scenario such that there are eight to ten obstacles between the starting situation and the end goal, and a failure scenario that kicks in after three or four successes. This isn't much in the way of advice, because I'm still working out how to do this reliably myself. My first attempt (navigating an early-warning trap room) worked pretty well, and it confirmed my main thought: the key is to keep the players out of the "roll my highest skill" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
Dedekind posted:Bit of a rambling response here, sorry. This idea works really well with the Obsidian Skill Challenge system. Each round could have a different set of skills allowed. So the first round could be getting into the building, the second round could be getting access to the king, and the third round could be convincing the king to help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
I think the worst thing you can do in a skill challenge is announce to the party that they are in a skill challenge because the players will modulate their thinking accordingly and a boring encounter occurs. I prefer to integrate skill challenges into other forms of interaction, mission planning and combat being the big ones. Combat is especially interesting because action economy becomes huge: players have to decide whether to cleave an orc or try to disable the death machine or w/e For example, I recently ran an encounter where the players fought against a team of excavators and the totemic guardian of a ruin. The guardian could not be killed in normal fashion, but the players could knock it down, rendering it somewhat helpless, and then the mystical wards on it could be deactivated, making it inert. So, the skill challenge was how to take down the statue, and the players concocted a great plan in which they climbed a nearby building and used a section of mooring rope to garrote it, whilst simultaneously using particular powers like blastback swipe to destabilize its legs. The end of the challenge occurred when the statue was tottering around and the barbarian jumped on its face, causing it fall upon a mob of enemies. I also made sure to lay the groundwork: In an earlier fight, while the players too on an occult sorcerer, a group of NPCs took one of these statues down. This gave me an opportunity to set expectations: that they would not be able to kill the thing normally, that it could be knocked down in various ways, and that the players would have to fight one of their own soon. This gave the players time to plan a bit (they picked up the rope and some explosives, as well as interrogating various NPCs on the best approaches) but they also had to improvise since the details of the terrain and enemies were not known to them in advance. I find this sort of approach works well and accommodates a lot of player demographics. Some like to plan, some just want to kill things with swords, and others want to use an arsenal of skills and tools to solve puzzles. Combi-encounters are good as a happy medium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Pentheus posted:Combi-encounters are good as a happy medium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:Agreed. The two skill challenges that I've run that were really successful were both challenges that happened in the middle of combat, and forced the PCs to split their actions between "not dying from enemies" and "solving skill challenge, and thus not dying" I thought about running an encounter this way, but it seemed to me it was basically asking a player to voluntarily take a dazed status: "Oh, well, I don't get to do anything fun this turn because we need an Arcana check." Was that how your players were taking it? Or if not, how did you run it so that they were feeling useful when they were using skills instead of powers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
Dedekind posted:I thought about running an encounter this way, but it seemed to me it was basically asking a player to voluntarily take a dazed status: "Oh, well, I don't get to do anything fun this turn because we need an Arcana check." Was that how your players were taking it? Or if not, how did you run it so that they were feeling useful when they were using skills instead of powers? The other was when the party, in a helicopter (don't ask) got their stabilizer tail bitten off by a Red Dragon who was upset they were flying near his mountain. So half the party jumped out, Terminal Velocity-style, and did aerial combat against the dragon and his minions (they had potions of feather fall instead of parachutes) and the ranged characters stayed in the spinning, falling chopper to try and do fire control while taking potshots as needed. (the skill challenge was to have the chopper crash softly instead of hard) The aformentioned warden even got in on it from outside by trying to hold the chopper steady from outside. So yeah, splitting the party works, for very small values of split.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
Dedekind posted:I thought about running an encounter this way, but it seemed to me it was basically asking a player to voluntarily take a dazed status: "Oh, well, I don't get to do anything fun this turn because we need an Arcana check." Was that how your players were taking it? Or if not, how did you run it so that they were feeling useful when they were using skills instead of powers? The difference between being dazed and doing a check is that your character is actually doing something. I think it could be awesome/really suspenseful if while fighting bad guys one of the characters was off trying to do a check to advance through the dungeon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Dedekind posted:I thought about running an encounter this way, but it seemed to me it was basically asking a player to voluntarily take a dazed status: "Oh, well, I don't get to do anything fun this turn because we need an Arcana check." Was that how your players were taking it? Or if not, how did you run it so that they were feeling useful when they were using skills instead of powers? My players really seem to enjoy it a lot; skill checks in such encounters are generally more strategic and interesting than "attack orc, hit, roll damage". In the example I described, the players planned and executed a complex strategy of their own devising; I just set some very basic rules: knock it down, but you can't kill it. They figured out how to use the terrain and their skills/powers to best effect. And the resulting encounter was a lot of fun: the players planned together, worked as a team and scrutinized their sheets for abilities to leverage. I think the trick is to make it clear that players can use skills, without telling them specifically which skills to use and how to use them. If you structure your encounter such that it's clear what is needed and when, reducing skills to simple keys to be inserted in an obvious keyhole each round, yes, it will suck for them. Honestly, when I plan more or less "freestyle" challenges, I try not to think too hard about how the players can solve it so I don't inadvertently railroad them into a particular solution. This is a fine line to toe, however, because if players can't figure out what to do and you can't help them, they get frustrated too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Pentheus posted:I think the trick is to make it clear that players can use skills, without telling them specifically which skills to use and how to use them. If you structure your encounter such that it's clear what is needed and when, reducing skills to simple keys to be inserted in an obvious keyhole each round, yes, it will suck for them. I think a good example of this was when I had someone come into the player's bases cosmetics area to give the players some disguise kits. The players had earlier that day received information that a Doppleganger was going to try infiltrating the quarantined zone they had set up to keep a hideous magic resistant disease under control. Informed, they had their followers arrow away the obvious Doppleganger. But while they were out engaging in a seperate fight elsewhere, their followers were given some free disguise kits. The players were rushing around, double checked the quarantined zone, invented new security measures, smashed one of the kits open, checked them for poison, checked them for magic, double checked the quarantined zone again. The other character had decided to head back to her base to rest, when she found she'd been given free disguise kits as well. She also managed to notice her hairbrush was out of place, which allowed them to figure out that the kits were a red herring, an excuse to get into their bases and steal some of their hair. They deduced what spell was likely to be used, and devised appropriate magical counter measures. It was great fun for a non combat encounter. The PC's were actually more worried then they were in the combat encounter itself. (Although even if it was successful, it would not have been as threatening, overall it was an easy night.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
Masonity posted:
If you've sold the game to the players as "The game starts with you being the mind-controlled servants of a shadowy organisation, compelled to follow their orders by magical amulets around your necks (which you haven't yet found a way to remove)" then it's not railroady to have the first session be just that. In my book, railroading is when a GM forces an entire plot upon you. That's why it's called a railroad: there's a story laid out in front of you and you've got no option but to follow it. Having single plot points that get forced on your characters is far less bad, especially because it's much easier if the players miss their plot point in Dungeon A to relocate it to Dungeon B instead without making the players realise they were forced, and especially especially if your plot point is of the form "This thing, which is outside of your control, happens to you. How do you react?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
Whybird posted:If you've sold the game to the players as "The game starts with you being the mind-controlled servants of a shadowy organisation, compelled to follow their orders by magical amulets around your necks (which you haven't yet found a way to remove)" then it's not railroady to have the first session be just that. Just make sure you're honest with your players and say around how long this might last and that this isn't the whole point of the game. I just saying that if I was told that, with no indication that it would change or end, I'd have second thoughts about even participating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
Ok I'm looking for a couple of ideas. The game I play in has a compulsive cheater, always getting really high on rolls that count and things like that. We all know he does it and our GM wants to try and break him of it before having to tell him to  We're playing in the 3.5 D&D system. One of the ideas I threw up was doing a mirror fight in a magic room where he and his opponent switched dice rolls for everything and he had no idea. Any ideas would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
TheKingslayer posted:Ok I'm looking for a couple of ideas. The game I play in has a compulsive cheater, always getting really high on rolls that count and things like that. We all know he does it and our GM wants to try and break him of it before having to tell him to That doesn't seem likely to solve the problem. Cheating is basically one of the most embarrassing things you can get caught doing, and while the above idea is a great way to screw with him, it won't make him admit to what he's doing. If you're really unlucky, he'll even use it as an example of how he's "not always lucky" because he got his rear end kicked that one time. The best thing you can do is be discrete but firm. I actually had this same problem a year or two ago, with a player who was also a good friend of mine. Everyone knew he was doing it, and it was painfully awkward for everyone, trying to pretend to be excited when something went well for him. What I ended up doing was taking him aside privately before a game, and explaining that I'd seen him altering his rolls, he denied it, and I repeated firmly that I'd seen it, and it needed to stop. I explained that I realized he got super-excited about the game, and that he wanted the party to do well, but that it actually hurt the party. I reminded him that if he was always successful, it forced me as GM to up the difficulty of encounters to retain threat, but since the other players were playing fair, they became less and less equipped to deal with the encounters, and thus more likely to die the more he fudged his rolls. The most important things are not to let on that the other players know as well, and avoid overly condemning language. Hell, if you can avoid using the word 'cheating' it might be good. Basically, the less you shame them, the more likely they are to just quietly alter their behavior, even if they don't acknowledge it. That way you can all get back to having fun without too much drama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
Chainsawdomy posted:That doesn't seem likely to solve the problem. Cheating is basically one of the most embarrassing things you can get caught doing, and while the above idea is a great way to screw with him, it won't make him admit to what he's doing. If you're really unlucky, he'll even use it as an example of how he's "not always lucky" because he got his rear end kicked that one time. I'd honestly prefer it that way if it were my game but our GM is a super nice guy and doesn't want to have a problem. Because pretty much this is the dude's last chance, he always plots against the party and crap like that. I have fun regardless since the GM doesn't let the dickhead win. I'm sure it'll work itself out eventually though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
TheKingslayer posted:I'd honestly prefer it that way if it were my game but our GM is a super nice guy and doesn't want to have a problem. Because pretty much this is the dude's last chance, he always plots against the party and crap like that. I have fun regardless since the GM doesn't let the dickhead win. I'm sure it'll work itself out eventually though. so this is the guy's "last chance" and the DM won't even give him the courtesy of letting him know? Double secret probation isn't a tool in a super nice guy's toolbox.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:so this is the guy's "last chance" and the DM won't even give him the courtesy of letting him know? Double secret probation isn't a tool in a super nice guy's toolbox. Agreed. TheKingslayer posted:he always plots against the party and crap like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
TheKingslayer posted:I'd honestly prefer it that way if it were my game but our GM is a super nice guy and doesn't want to have a problem. Because pretty much this is the dude's last chance, he always plots against the party and crap like that. I have fun regardless since the GM doesn't let the dickhead win. I'm sure it'll work itself out eventually though. Here's the way to fix it. Have the GM say that he's going to try something new - all rolls done in the open. Then you can see if the dude is shameless enough to lie about what he rolls on a die in front of everyone. The flipside is that the GM has to roll in the open too but that's not a problem for me - I prefer it, keeps me honest. Edit: Of course it's better to just be direct, but if you're ever going to win an argument with someone you have to give them a gracious way to back down. This puts up a warning flag but lets him mend his own behavior. Maybe. That Rough Beast fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
here's the way to fix it. have the gm take the guy aside and say "this game is not fun when you cheat, please stop cheating"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
I don't even understand how people realistically think they can get away with it anyway. I mean I'm sitting here trying to think of the various gimmicks you would use to cheat in a game where everybody rolls dice that are clearly visible on the tabletop to everyone else sitting there and all I'm coming up with is some keystone cops poo poo where you quickly pick the dice up before anyone can see or send them caroming off your trapper keeper into the floor and the idea of someone developing these techniques is just pathetic on so many levels.
That Rough Beast fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
why not just lie about whats on your character sheet anyway, who actually lies about how they rolled. "oh yeah I forgot I've got another fireball memorized" is a much better lie than "I critically hit the orc lord" seriously if you are going to be shameless go all out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 05:24
|
|
|
That Rough Beast posted:I don't even understand how people realistically think they can get away with it anyway. I mean I'm sitting here trying to think of the various gimmicks you would use to cheat in a game where everybody rolls dice that are clearly visible on the tabletop to everyone else sitting there and all I'm coming up with is some keystone cops poo poo where you quickly pick the dice up before anyone can see or send them caroming off your trapper keeper into the floor and the idea of someone developing these techniques is just pathetic on so many levels. When my one friend would get a few beers in he'd be prone to fudging his ranger's rolls by snatching them up before anyone could get a good look at them, so a 6 might become a 16. But we didn't care because by then we were usually also a few beers in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
What? My players have to do all rolls in the open. There are obvious exceptions, but what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 08:52
|
|
|
We played in a living room, in a 'U' of couches around a small table. I didn't have a screen or anything, I just rolled on the edge of the coffee table behind a cupped hand. The table was usually pretty full of paper, pencils, drinks, books etc., and because of the layout it was impossible to get it near enough to all 3 couches at once to roll on easily. My die-roll fudging player was a pretty big guy, so of the five of us he usually had a couch to himself. That meant the table was usually positioned central to the couches with the rest of us. He rolled in the lid off a big cardboard box, and that worked fine for a long time. He wasn't a bad guy, not even particularly selfish- he just would get really invested, and hated letting the party down, so over time his frequency of good rolls began to get suspiciously good. I could see his rolls if I wanted to stand up, and one of my other players could easily crane his head, but we were all good friends and not in the habit of checking each other. Plus, it sped up the game if everyone could just shout out their replies. My first tip off was when his answers became hesitant, as he figured out what he needed before declaring what he had rolled. I started to stand up and look at his rolls, which often produced a sudden shift in the box that moved the die. That's when I knew we had a problem. None of us said anything until I caught him moving a little too slowly, and saw a 6 he declared as an 18 get 'tumbled' like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
I'm new to the idea of running skill challenges and I'm just now beginning to have faith in my improvisational out-of-combat DMing. I've been looking at the Obsidian skill challenges and it seems like a good improvement over the published rules in the DMG, I am a definite believer that X successes before 3 rounds is a good model, but for the goddamn life of me I cannot figure out what a round is supposed to consist of outside of combat  Let's say the party has been brought to trial on conspiracy charges, and they have to convince a judge that they're not associated with an evil cult. It's a social skill challenge using Diplomacy/Bluff/Insight (Intimidate probably wouldn't go down too smooth in a courtroom). This is what I'm envisioning: 1) DM says "Okay everyone around this table, tell me what you are going to do." 2) One by one everyone tells the DM what their character is doing and rolls using the skill they chose. 3) DM says "The judge looks down at you and says 'well i am not convinced hm okay'" 4) Repeat two more times This can't be the sort of sequence envisioned by Obsidian, right? It just seems too rigid but I can't get the idea of rounds-as-in-combat out of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
csammis posted:I'm new to the idea of running skill challenges and I'm just now beginning to have faith in my improvisational out-of-combat DMing. I've been looking at the Obsidian skill challenges and it seems like a good improvement over the published rules in the DMG, I am a definite believer that X successes before 3 rounds is a good model, but for the goddamn life of me I cannot figure out what a round is supposed to consist of outside of combat For this example, I might do a prosecution (where each of them takes the stand against someone who is against them), defense (where they get to show their own reasoning for what happened), and closing arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
So it should be more of a one-on-one thing in each round? Player 1 role-plays out what they're going to do, makes the roll, and the DM reacts accordingly to its success or failure. Repeat for all players who are participating for the completion of one round, then twice more and count the successes at the end?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
csammis posted:This is what I'm envisioning: Try to find natural places to break it up. There's a reason that the Obsidian system is based around "segments" - that boils down to rounds in combat, but it doesn't have to be anything like that for non-combat challenges. A segment might end up lasting hours in-game in certain circumstances. For instance, in a fantasy courtroom, you might say that everyone gets to make an opening statement to the judge/jury/whatever (segment one), witnesses are cross-examined (segment two), and finally everyone makes their closing statements (segment three). If the party later has to chase a cult member through the Menacing Woods of Darkness, they might face an athletic skill challenge where they have to quickly get across a fast-moving river or steep ravine after the cultist cut the rope bridge (segment one), keep up with the cultist through a dense thicket (segment two), and finally get through a maze of tripwires, pitfalls, and other minor traps outside the secret cult base (segment three). None of these are tied to rounds, and in fact might represent quite a bit of in-game time - but they're discrete places where players have to bring their skills into play for a larger goal. csammis posted:So it should be more of a one-on-one thing in each round? This is a possibility, but it's not a requirement. In a roleplaying-heavy scene like the courtroom, it's probably your best option. In general, players are going to want to be able to present an impassioned defense of their friend, and from a mechanical standpoint they're probably going to want whatever roleplaying bonuses might be on the table, too. If people are chasing a dude through a thicket, on the other hand, it'd be a lot simpler. In that case, you'd probably just run a brief "I use skill x to do y," around the table, everybody rolls, and you figure out successes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Thanks guys, that helps a lot!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE. Was about to post this in the worst experiences thread but figured it wasn't that bad so I put it here: Last night I DMed a solo session with my girlfriend to kind of introduce her to D&D (and PnP RPGs in general). It's kind of a pre-session to the main campaign I'll be starting soon--introduces her part in the story, gets her familiar with the system and combat and such, etc. Before the session she was really ambivalent, but willing to try it out for me. She ended up really enjoying it and says she can't wait for the campaign to start now  But problem was, it'd been about 3-4 years since I'd DMed anything at all, and I was rusty as hell. Should've been simple--She rolled a Persian Half-elf Ranger, and decided for her background that she'd been captured and placed into slavery. I used this to segue into a relatively generic "you find yourself tied up and captured in a room..." thing (not by her master, but someone who bought her from the master). She then had to get free, find out why she'd been captured, and fight her way out of a crypt crawling with (very very weak) undead. Should've been simple, but I kept slipping things here and there. At one point she was escorting a mute cleric who happened to be recently undead and in a Bad Guy's thrall, but she wasn't supposed to know that he was undead OR a cleric. I kept referring to him as a dead man, dropping hints here and there, until at one point she asked me a question about him and I replied "Well, the dead cleric is--wait gently caress." Also I playtested the mini-adventure with her character sheet and discovered initially that I made my zombies way too strong (they kept swarming and killing her in the first room) and the skeleton way too weak (she one-shotted it consistently), so I fiddled with the stats til it seemed balanced. I did all right in making it challenging, but I didn't beef up the skeleton-boss enough and she two-shotted it easily. Oh well, a learning experience  A couple highlights: after breaking free of her bonds, then successfully grappling/tying up the undead cleric, she enters the first room and loving Legolases the three zombies in there: hit, hit, hit, and rolls high enough to kill each one in one shot, while the zombies shuffle toward her and don't even get close enough to spit. I thought that was an awesome way to start off, and she felt like a total badass. Also, later on she managed to crit a zombie so hard that I narrated it as her arrow hitting dead-center between the eyes, ripping the head off, and pinning it to the wall behind him. And finally a question: My idea for the campaign opener is this (kind of adapting an idea from another thread): This crypt she's in is actually a tomb honoring great and holy heroes, located beneath the town church (and also a tunnel leading to the commoner's graveyard, currently blocked). As she made her way closer to the end, she heard more and more commotion coming from above, and I ended the scene after she fought her way to a spiral staircase ascending to the main cathedral (which the Bad Guy ascended earlier before she fought the skeleton). So in opening, I'm going to describe this scene: In front of the church, an angry mob of villagers--torches, pitchforks and all--have cornered the head priest at the entrance of the cathedral. They're led by an NPC Paladin (practically the Inquisition in this setting), and they demand answers/blood. The priest could have run inside and barred the doors, but he takes strength in his innocence, and is confronting them. They're scared and angry because of reports/evidence that one of the clergy have been dabbling in necromantic magic. Everyone in town is there, the mayor's carriage and entourage (plus guards/etc.) are rolling up, and a few scattered mercenaries and "Robber Knights" who were passing through have stopped by to watch the scene unfold. After describing this and going into a bit of detail, I'll give them a few minutes to decide who they are, where they are in the scene, and what they want/why they're there. Then Vena (girlfriend's character) will pop out of the staircase, and we'll begin playing, and we'll take it from there, however the scene plays out. Any thoughts, comments?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
First, let's get it out of the way: it's me I'm the grognard. I'm pretty good at calibrating encounters to fall just short of killing PCs. That seems cool with everyone. Players seem to like the sense of danger, and overcoming long odds. But the laws of probability dictate that in these situations someone's luck will run out. That's not really anything I relish. My players invest in their characters, and a good GM should also be invested in their individual plot threads. Character death is just a big disruption given the time and effort that can go into introducing and developing a decent replacement. I've already preempted a failed survival roll (Saga Edition) with a handy deus ex machina, and forced a few sub-optimal choices with some dangerous foes. But this seems like a cop-out. One trick I'm considering instead of character death in these situations is temporary incapacitation; have the players roll up a secondary character to use for the odd session while their primary heals up. So tell me what a vindictive douche I am here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
Raise dead?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
Inapplicable (typically) in Star Wars. Even when it's genre appropriate, depending on player access to the spell and the costs the edition/homerules impose on it, it may not represent much in the way of consequences. edit: I must admit I would be all for a raise dead spell (or re-animation technology that is functionally identical to magic) that brings people back not quite as lurching zombies, but in some state of putrid decay or with minor brain damage. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Well, raise dead and similar spells work perfectly fine. The XP penalty is a good incentive to be scared of dying. Why not invent something similar? Your players don't die, but get heavily wounded and incapacitated. Medicinal facilities can heal this damage, but not completely. This results in permanent XP loss and temporary degradation of the character stats. Like -1 on all attributes until the next level is reached.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 22:43
|
|