|
Is there danger in tossing XP out the window in AD&D2 and just saying after 10-15 fights won or cleverly averted that they gained a EDIT: Window, what the hell?
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Dear god yes. Do that. You'll never want to mess with XP again because you can just level up when you feel it's time. If you are all enjoying level 8, hang out at level 8 for a while. Assigning XP does the opposite of this because you would burn through the levels your character scales well at and linger at the dead levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Yeah, and if you hit the "give a player some bonus xp" moment look back on rewards in this thread. Give the guy something ranging from a few healing potions to a daily utility spell based on how big his moment was. Something like "Can unlock a lock without lockpicks" kind of thing. Tracking everyone's XP and trying to balance an imbalanced party is a serious pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
The only benefit incremental XP gain is if leveling is the carrot for your game. Going up levels and getting stronger can be fun, but if you use XP then actions that earn the XP will be more incentivized. If you're looking for a different feel, then basically ditching XP and saying to your players: "Wow, that was amazing! we've taken care of the archduke lich and his abombination. you've brought this case to a close. I think this is a great time to debrief, take a few weeks for the characters to relax, plan your next move, and level up!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
How would you handle xp for systems that are not level based, such as the White Wolf stuff or the Hero System? Typically I'd give equal experience for a session to everyone that attends with maybe a small bonus to an individual every so often. We have a couple flaky players, so they tend to end up with slightly less experience overall as the campaign continues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
"At narratively-appropriate times" is nearly always the answer. That may be every session if they finish a meaningful "thing" each time! Differential experience for flaky players usually isn't worth it because they are then not as useful when they do show up. In low-power campaigns it can be ok, if the difference between the most and least powerful isn't that great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Initio posted:How would you handle xp for systems that are not level based, such as the White Wolf stuff or the Hero System? Style Points may be your answer, depending on the game. When a player's character does something that's awesome (handling one of their weaknesses really well or really poorly, performing a detailed, amazing stunt, pulling off a clever plan, etc.), or the player does something that's in good form (like helping another player make their character, providing the Mt. dew, hosting the Game Night, promote an opportunity to allow another player's character to take the limelight, etc.) you give the player a Style Point. Style points are then spend by players to do somewthing cool in your game, like helping your character gain a temporary upshift on a roll, or allowing the player to dictate a convenient fact that helps their character. Have style points expire at the end of a session, to encourage spending them and not hoarding them. Style points don't add to the eventual progression of your character's power, but allow you to make more awesome things happen right now. It gives that "Ding!" sense of accomplishment earning XP gives, without making power creep an ongoing issue. Depending on how much fictional or narrative control players already have over the world or story beyond their characters may determine what sort of useful things Style Points could be used for, but it's usually either "Things players can already do, turned up to 11" or "Some of the things the GM can normally do, but just for 1 move" Suggestions in the thread like razorwire suggested are great for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Initio posted:How would you handle xp for systems that are not level based, such as the White Wolf stuff or the Hero System? I always used the following criteria when I was running a White Wolf Game: 1 xp for showing up, 1 xp for contributing to the game in some meaningful fashion ('meaningful fashion' is a very low bar; as long as someone wasn't dicking around on their laptop or sleeping all game, they got it), 1 xp for doing Something Awesome (that is, any time a character does something that makes the rest of the players go 'oh, that's cool' they get a bonus XP), 2-3 XP for Story Completion once they hit a plot milestone. Now, this might be more XP than you want, if you're aiming for a lower-powered game; if that's the case, shift some of the rewards. Maybe the Something Awesome bonus turns into something less tangible, like the aforementioned Style Points or you get a favor owed to you by an NPC or something. "But DCB," I hear you saying, "that doesn't address the power differential between flaky and non-flaky players!" And you know, that's absolutely the case. It doesn't. I don't think the key to addressing that differential is in XP; I think it's in "giving people poo poo to do that doesn't rely on the numbers on the character sheet." As long as those players have a niche or have a chance to do Something Awesome even if they don't have as many dots as the other guys, they'll be happy, and that's what matters. Hell, if you follow the Notable Gaming Experiences thread, in the Star Wars game I play in and have posted stories from, my character is the lowest level - but I still have my niche (computer guy) and I still have my chances to do Awesome Stuff (the act of saying 'hey guys, instead of blowing up the droid fleet let's reprogram them' or inventing the Floating Chrysanthemum Fleet did not at any point have anything to do with my stats). I'm behind the power curve, but that doesn't stop me from being Awesome, and it doesn't have to stop anyone else either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
ok, so I am running a 4e D&D campaign, where I have decided to have one of the PCs be the mysterious figure the party is in search of; I discussed it with the player and he is down with it. Through the course of the campaign, as they find clues as to the fate/identity of this guy, He will encounter people from his past (loved ones, family members, etc.) and I want to have this trigger an emotional response in him every time, and some of the other group members each time. The idea being, that as the campaign carries on, he is the only one consistently affected emotionally by the revelations, to kinda give the rest of the party a clue that something is up. A couple ideas I had for handling this: after some box text, make an "attack roll" vs. everyone's Will defense, and fudge it so that guy always fails. I am thinking it might be best to let him narrate his reaction, however, rather than telling him what he does. If it needs further justification, the party's NPC bard is sorta... able to absorb and reemit emotions from songs/poems/stories, so I could say that he is the one causing the "attack" roll, but I worry this would make it seem fake and arbitrary and not convey the point that the stories are truly having an impact on this one particular PC. I know this is probably super weird and unconventional, but any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:ok, so I am running a 4e D&D campaign, where I have decided to have one of the PCs be the mysterious figure the party is in search of; I discussed it with the player and he is down with it. Without knowing more about the setting, I'd have the NPC bard playing a song that makes everyone feel strong emotions when these people are encountered; it rolls vs. will, and if it hits, that character must perform some action that exemplifies that emotion. To make it seem a little less arbitrary, you could assign random modifiers to the party members when they roll. I don't know how I'd conceal this from the party, because when Gromfey the Wizard is at -20 vs hit every time, people might start thinking something is up. To work around that, I might tell the player each time this happens they'll decide not to defend. If you've got a confederate party member, I'd talk to them quite about what you're planning to have happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 22:47
|
|
P.S. STILL COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MERIT
|
Well, to clarify just a little, by "fudge" I mean "roll behind the screen" rather than "arbitrary penalties to get the desired result" DM: *rolls* What's your Will? PC: 17 DM: Sorry dude! Not your lucky day! etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
I'm in desperate need of help right now. Does anyone have a dungeon map that isn't in loving 10x10 scale I can just print out? I'm terrible at making dungeon maps myself, and I actually need one tommorrow. My week's been to busy to just copy one down from the internet onto paper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:I'm in desperate need of help right now. Does anyone have a dungeon map that isn't in loving 10x10 scale I can just print out? I'm terrible at making dungeon maps myself, and I actually need one tommorrow. My week's been to busy to just copy one down from the internet onto paper. I have no idea what you mean by "10x10 scale," though. http://donjon.bin.sh/4e/dungeon/ http://www.gozzys.com/article.php?cm_id=8
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I have no idea what you mean by "10x10 scale," though. He means ones that are 10foot by 10 foot, the standard D&D scale being 5foot by 5foot per square.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
If you need a grid, I made this as an experiment; if you don't need a grid, I've put some maps up here. They're all drawn with a 70 px grid, I just don't include it in the images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
I've read through most of this thread and think it may be time to ask my own questions. First, does a campaign lose any validity by being played online? The idea I like to cultivate with tabletop games is a bunch of friends sitting around a table, drinking, and finding humorous and novel ways to destroy goblins. Several people sitting alone at their computer playing together with Maptools (or more likely Roll20, as I want to make it as easy to pick-up-and-play for my friends as possible) kinda kills that feeling for me. I'm a part of an online campaign and absolutely love it, but I'd be bringing together several players for their first tabletop gaming sessions if I worked online and I don't want to give them an incomplete experience. Second, should I use a 'tried and true' system simply for the ease of use? I've talked to several 'maybe' players and gotten their ideas and what they want out of a campaign, and to be entirely honest I'd really like to use GURPS. The 'generic' and 'universal' feeling to the entire thing feels like each player will receive a personalized home for their skillset and attributes. I'd help nudge them along with character-sheets and all that, but ultimately I want to know if using such a complicated system (or, it will look complicated to them as opposed to, say, dungeon world) will turn off players that want to dive in. By the same token, if I use a simpler system, will I turn off the more creative and interesting minds from the group? I'm not trying to make every PC a special snowflake, but I want every player to think of their character as special, if that makes any sense. I know the general idea for this thread is to not let the players determine the game, but I'm simply looking for the best style to bring together several interested new players that I think will do wonderfully. They don't want a different DM (one that isn't a friend, at least) and I don't want to give them a bad first experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
QuixoticQuotation posted:I've read through most of this thread and think it may be time to ask my own questions. For first timers, I think you'd want character creation to be pretty easy, and for the rules to be more penetrable. One of the *world games like dungeon world or apocalypse world would suit that. For more flavourful, personal characters you can help players create custom moves as play goes on and they get a good feel for their characters and their place in the world. If they're IRL friends and you can wrangle an in person game, with a table, drinks, and dice is preferable, but if online through roll20 is an easier option to organise for a taster, go for it. Do you have a theme in mind for the game?. Fantasy? Detective? Horror? Supers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
They're IRL friends, and I could get a group in person but it wouldn't be the 'optimal' group. If I went with online it would be all of my closest friends together playing. The best talent I know, so to speak. I enjoy the idea of helping players create custom moves. A little GM Fudging and non-perfect rulebooks is why I'm interested in tabletop games to begin with. As for a theme, I'm thinking a heavy fantasy setting. Not the kinda fantasy that's forced to make up words, but something along the lines of the world in Soma Bringer- where magic has been harnessed as a bit of a technology and is starting to collapse social structures because of it. Their cities ran, not on electricity, but on 'Soma' (that game's version of Mana) until they were damaging the Soma around them and slowly ruining everything. I want players to have a world to have a bit of a sandbox feel, but with a certain sense of urgency attached to the plot. Almost a fantasy sitcom, where each adventure is novel and player focused/driven but overall following an underlying storyline. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself clearly at all, and I hope that isn't foreshadowing to my skills as a future-GM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
I'm a strong advocate of online media for RPGs. I use OpenRPG extensively and enjoy it greatly. The thing I've noticed about real-time online play is it has a real focus on role play. You tend to get a lot more description and scene-setting, with people focusing on how their characters perform actions rather than simply what they do. It's also slower and more 'talk-y', so you have to consider that. The other issue is flaking. In-person games have a level of accountability to them. At least subconsciously you recognize that your GM can punch you in the arm next he sees you if you just blow the game off when you play in the meat. Online, not so much. Still, you gain a greater exposure to different games and styles of play, and you're not stuck playing with the same four guys every time you wanna play. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
There are tradeoffs with both. I find it easier to incorporate graphics, sweeping vistas, music, etc. and make a really neat experience. However, you lose a lot of the interaction, even talking over Skype; people talk with more than their voice, and you miss out on funny gestures and faces people might pull while roleplaying. I have the opposite experience to Lazy Bear about the speed of play, where online tends to go faster but has a slightly lighter emphasis on roleplaying, but that may be due to the vagaries of 4E. I do know that MapTool with the Rumble Lite framework makes combat vastly faster, more intuitive and unambiguous, and easier to set up (especially if you have access to the Compendium). Because I can quickly make a high-quality encounter, however, I lose a lot of flexibility if my players go off in a weird direction in the middle of a session. It's obvious when my normally lush maps change to MSPaint scribbles and detailed monsters suddenly don't work right, compared to if I was using a whiteboard every map I made looked like a scribble, whether it was prepared or adlibbed. Online tends to be a lot more flexible since there's no travel time and you have a much larger pool of players, so your quality tends to be higher. But there's something intrinsically fun about sitting around the same table, throwing dice around and eating snacks while talking about being murder hobos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
QuixoticQuotation posted:Words. I'd recommend doing it in the flesh. Skype gaming sucks. Just forget about it. Just play a computer game if you're going to be staring at your computer screen. As far as which game system you should play, you pick it and ask them before starting. If they say yes, you're golden. If they say no, well then... You choose yours anyway. If you want to run GURPS and they don't, then you should lead them into believing their character sheets are important and then BAM surprise, you're playing Paranoia. Then you kill them all within an hour for being treasonous commie mutants armed only with ham sandwiches and a Beta fish. After you slaughter them in short, soul crushing order, then pull out your GURPS book, return their character sheets to them and say, "I'm just loving with you, we're playing GURPS." They'll be happy. Happy that they are playing GURPS and not Paranoia. And hopefully they'll be happy that you are willing to devote the time to GM a game for their sorry PC asses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Another thing I've noticed about online play (of which I am a big fan) is that if you use a chat function for in-character dialogue, the roleplaying becomes more "literary", like PbP. With the extra few seconds to think about what you're saying, you're able to edit what your character says (or as a GM, what your NPCs say). It takes longer to "get it out" because you have to type, but on the other hand people can all be typing at the same time, where it doesn't work so well for talking. Having a chatlog also enables better recall of items received, names dropped, et cetera. Aside from the good things mentioned above, which are not inconsiderable. Basically, with a good group, it's all goo, online or in person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
I definitely prefer to play in person, but online is an close substitute. Dark Horse's point with 'people talking with more than their voice' pretty much sums it up. My current game started out in person, and moved online when I moved away (and all the players are the the same physical location), so the dynamics might be a little different. I've also found online mapping/tokens... give an arguably better, but less satisfying, end result. The maps my party gets now are definitely prettier (and easier to keep flat) than the maps when we played in person. But its much less satisfying to point to a map section with a drop shadow and different color and say "This a plateau" than to put a book down on the map and say "This is a plateau" homullus sums up my feelings about RPing with text chat. Its slower, but results are often better, and the automatic (and fully searchable) logging is really nice. And that really, if your group is good, it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Wow that's a lot of solid advice and opinions. Thanks, guys. I think I'll do a session or two in person to make sure I have at least a core of players that are familiar to the rules, and to give me some room to play around and make sure I've got everything down. Then I'll open the floodgates and start my first 'real' campaign online (which, if we're not feeling it, I'll have no trouble exchanging for another).God Of Paradise posted:A pretty good idea
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
QuixoticQuotation posted:Wow that's a lot of solid advice and opinions. Thanks, guys. I think I'll do a session or two in person to make sure I have at least a core of players that are familiar to the rules, and to give me some room to play around and make sure I've got everything down. Then I'll open the floodgates and start my first 'real' campaign online (which, if we're not feeling it, I'll have no trouble exchanging for another). I started my Pathfinder/3.5 open source amalgamation of a game by having the players fight a never ending stream of guards in an unarmed combat sequence that would only end in the players going to jail. It was a dick move, but it worked by doing a few things. 1) Each rear end in a top hat cop the players took down gave them 1 reputation point to the underground organizations in the city. 2) It was a good way to teach all the new players, or players who haven't gamed in years, like me, how to run combat. So it was a good tutorial. 3)I was able to take away all of the players stuff, so they have an immediate goal of getting back all of their stuff. And 4) It started the game off by the players getting out of jail, and set up the adversarial nature of them versus the law. So yeah, a tutorial scene that opens the game on conflict, and sets up the tone of the game is something I recommend. God Of Paradise fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Feb 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:So yeah, a tutorial scene that opens the game on conflict, and sets up the tone of the game is something I recommend. I did this. "You are almost back to your homeland when you run into a band of ruffians who tell you 'gently caress you, you mercenaries aren't welcome here anymore.'" Now they have this opposing force who pops up whenever, to dick them over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:I was able to take away all of the players stuff, so they have an immediate goal of getting back all of their stuff. This, here, is a risky maneuver for most systems. I don't like doing it, because a lot of players actively invest character points/backstory/what have you into items of import and then make a character that more or less relies on having the item. Then, even if you present the opportunity for them to get it back(a lot of GMs don't, or at least make it exceedingly difficult), all it takes is one rear end in a top hat to ruin it and suddenly that amount of character investment goes down the tubes and you have one extremely pissed-off player. And rightfully so. This is not to say 'never take gear from players, it's a cardinal sin and you're a bad person if you do it', but be very cautious about doing so and especially so if it's right off the bat because that's just not fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
On top of that, a lot of character classes/builds/etc can be severely hindered or straight up useless without their gear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Especially if someone has defined their character around their exotic weapon - "katana-wielding samurai" or "master of the urumi". Some players will see it as an opportunity for their character to go on a quest to regain their sworn weapon, but some will just get mad that they lost their toy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
When they killed the guy who beat them, arrested them and stole their stuff at the end of the third game session, it was worth it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
I chopped a player's foot off after a spectacular failure lifting a huge boulder. He was pretty shocked, but I explained that the consequences were he had a hastily crafted peg leg and -1 DEX until he found something better. Later in the next session, he got the opportunity to get a bronze clockwork leg to replace it. He ad to chop most of his own leg off, and the party had to make some rolls to attach it properly. The operation was a really tense scene and they all rolled very well, it was a really triumphant moment for all of us. Use up their resources, take their stuff, make their lives dangerous and scary, but always make the goal attainable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
madadric posted:Use up their resources, take their stuff, make their lives dangerous and scary, but always make the goal attainable. Exactly. This is why I like the term Game Master over the term Dungeon Master. Essentially your role as GM is to be a game designer. A game needs to be exciting but not overwhelming and you always want to have the consequences of bad or good choices felt. I recently played a game where the GM was very lackluster and everything just plodded along the set course. There was no resistance or danger, so I was never invested. Character progression never happens if you aren't working for it and achieving something. It's just writing numbers if you're not having to work for it. So the whole idea of throwing poo poo right in the face of players from the get-go is good. There needs to be some adversity for them to enjoy the game. With that said, I remember a time when I'd made a loving badass of a character. He rode a goddamn towering lizard which instilled fear in ALL who saw it. First session. Had to climb a mountain. Had to leave my lizard behind. Never saw it again. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
SafetyTrain posted:With that said, I remember a time when I'd made a loving badass of a character. He rode a goddamn towering lizard which instilled fear in ALL who saw it. First session. Had to climb a mountain. Had to leave my lizard behind. Never saw it again. gently caress. See, that's just wrong. I mean, I can see where it could be an issue from a GM perspective, but at the same time it's for you to say 'no' at character generation, not to take it away forever on the first session. That's rude and bad GMing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
If were GMing that game, I would have made the PCs slog over the mountain, facing grim challenges and narrowly avoiding death. And then on the other side, the lizard is standing there waiting for his master with a goofy 'Aren't I a good
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Tendales posted:If were GMing that game, I would have made the PCs slog over the mountain, facing grim challenges and narrowly avoiding death. And then on the other side, the lizard is standing there waiting for his master with a goofy 'Aren't I a good With a yeti's hand still in its mouth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Lazy Bear posted:See, that's just wrong. I mean, I can see where it could be an issue from a GM perspective, but at the same time it's for you to say 'no' at character generation, not to take it away forever on the first session. That's rude and bad GMing. Yeah, this and the whole "Let a player bring his girlfriend/little brother. Then kill their character 5 minutes in." isn't being clever or challenging your players. It's blatantly being a cock because you didn't feel like telling your friend "Well the module kind of breaks down if we have more than 4 characters so maybe tell him/her next time." or just say no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
homullus posted:With a yeti's hand still in its mouth. You know, now I kind of want to put together a game where the players collectively are responsible for a poorly-trained nigh-uncontrollable murderbeast. They can't stop it, they can't get rid of it, all they can do is try and channel it for more or less positive ends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Tendales posted:You know, now I kind of want to put together a game where the players collectively are responsible for a poorly-trained nigh-uncontrollable murderbeast. They can't stop it, they can't get rid of it, all they can do is try and channel it for more or less positive ends. Just model it after Terry Pratchett's The Luggage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Tendales posted:You know, now I kind of want to put together a game where the players collectively are responsible for a poorly-trained nigh-uncontrollable murderbeast. They can't stop it, they can't get rid of it, all they can do is try and channel it for more or less positive ends. And it's just too darn cute when it isn't eating entire villages 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Tendales posted:You know, now I kind of want to put together a game where the players collectively are responsible for a poorly-trained nigh-uncontrollable murderbeast. They can't stop it, they can't get rid of it, all they can do is try and channel it for more or less positive ends. The players are all childhood friends, and found a Tarrasque egg when they were younger. Not know what it was, they hatched it and raise the tiny beast. It now that its the size of a pony. It thinks they are its mommies, and thinks everything else is lunch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 21:55
|
|