|
This procedural dungeon generator seems like it could be useful. I'm definitely going to start keeping a few print-outs of these on hand for my game nights.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
BioTech posted:And he will. Right up until he leaves them stranded after getting the McGuffin by raiding an Orc camp or something. Airship going up, party in the woods, surrounded by angry Orcs, deep behind enemy lines and a final "This is for my friend..." while they start running. Just a question you might want to ponder: Do you want the duke do ditch them mid-battle because you want their actions to have consequences or is it because you're pissed off they think they can get away with anything? The duke just up and leaving them, sort of pseudo-punishing them with apparent death, might come off as more you being pissy they didn't go your way. A less radical way to do it might be to have the duke banish them and tell them "Do not return until the Mummy King is dead!" or something of the kind. This will be less dramatic though, which might not be what you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
BioTech posted:So, what do I do now? My mantra for GMing is always: 1. Give them hard choices 2. Show them the consequences of their actions. They knew they were putting a tyrant on the throne; let them have a tyrant on the throne, and every time they visit the city now, remind them that it is now a dictatorship where people are press-ganged into war. Especially if the evil guards beating up peasants get out of the PCs' way, bow and scrape to them, and generally remind them that they're flavour of the week here in Dystopian Dictatorship Hell. Re the vizier: if you want PCs to feel bad about something don't throw them a problem they can solve with violence, because the quickest way to dehumanise an NPC is to make them into a combat challenge. How about instead he becomes a political challenge? He figures out what's gone on with the Mummy King and shows up in the next place they go, making them an ultimatum: go back and avenge his beloved Sultan's death, or he'll tell the whole court how their price for betraying a king to an undead abomination was a really shiny sword.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
SafetyTrain posted:A less radical way to do it might be to have the duke banish them and tell them "Do not return until the Mummy King is dead!" or something of the kind. This will be less dramatic though, which might not be what you want. If you want to get across that the PCs hosed up without outright punishing them, how about having the Duke's response not be fury but quiet horror. The court call for the PCs to be executed for collaborating with the undead; to pacify them the Duke takes the fall for the PCs. He resigns his position in shame and the PCs get to play politics influencing which of three (all flawed -- one incompetent, one evil, and one who is great for the war but hates the PCs' guts) successors will take the throne.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
I think I like that even better. It's less predictable, keeps the Duke in the picture as a possible ally (once the party regains his trust, that is), but removes their support and should show them they really made a big mistake with far-reaching consequences. I would imagine that neither of the successors would be too keen on working with the party as closely or trustfully as the Duke did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
SafetyTrain posted:Just a question you might want to ponder: I'm not pissed about anything, we play for fun and if they want to make decisions like this everyone, inlcuding me, is cool with it. However, each choice should lead somewhere and I think this one in particular would have consequences for the story. Banishing them until they defeat the Mummy King seems like a really bad option. Basically they decided not to fight, for good reasons, so forcing them to do it anyway makes their choice completely void. That is just railroady, not giving them any other option than to fight the Mummy King. Whybird posted:My mantra for GMing is always: The thing with the guards and everything is a good idea. The Vizier becoming a fight creates the easy solution like you said, they will just fight him and solve the problem. The political challenge feels kind of the same as what SafetyTrain suggested. They chose not to fight him, why would I force them to fight him anyway? Ofcourse they could deal with the guy blackmailing them or run a Social challenge to defend themselves from the accusation, but it feels very forced. Whybird posted:If you want to get across that the PCs hosed up without outright punishing them, how about having the Duke's response not be fury but quiet horror. The court call for the PCs to be executed for collaborating with the undead; to pacify them the Duke takes the fall for the PCs. He resigns his position in shame and the PCs get to play politics influencing which of three (all flawed -- one incompetent, one evil, and one who is great for the war but hates the PCs' guts) successors will take the throne. I like that idea, losing the Duke would be quite a blow to them. However, it seems a lot like punishing them. You killed a man, you lose your favorite NPC. First plan is for them to get back and tell him what happened. The Mummy King won't be out for a few days, then still has to launch his whole campaign. So the Duke honestly doesn't know yet what happened and asks them. If they lie, he wouldn't know any better. Yet. After their next adventure he receives a box of heads with obvious Shadow King Agents, but the letter accompanying them is signed by someone else than the Sultan. He is happy things are getting dealt with over there, but curious about this new guy. Maybe he recognizes the name, maybe he doesn't, not sure yet. Finally, the idea is to get in reports about the oppression, people getting turned into Undead slaves and the Mummy King marching towards his country to join up, but demanding tributes along the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
BioTech posted:I like that idea, losing the Duke would be quite a blow to them. However, it seems a lot like punishing them. You killed a man, you lose your favorite NPC. How about they don't quite loose him, but their relationship changes. Previously they've enjoyed him seeing their side of things and agreeing that they did the right thing. This time, arguably, they didn't do the right thing. From the Dukes point of view he might see them as a liability and try to keep them at arms length more or less, or he tries to keep closer tabs on them. Maybe he has someone tail them during their next assignment, making the party question the Dukes intent. I think my point here is that you could slowly transform the Duke from an ally to a potential enemy, at some point the Duke views the players as a danger and not just a liability. A second idea sprung to mind from the "duke resigns his position" idea. A variant of this would be too let the Duke keep his position but other political forces close to the duke sees the party as a threat. Maybe even to the point where they allow the Vizier to get close to them (assassination attempt or something maybe). This way the party still has the Dukes ear somewhat, but his protection isn't full-proof anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Guesticles posted:In the end, however, you might be trying to get your party to feel empathy towards imaginary people that they just aren't going to feel. So be prepared for that. Damned if I didn't try this in my campaign. I think I can safely say I'll never do that again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Damned if I didn't try this in my campaign. I think I can safely say I'll never do that again. Takes a lot of work but it's doable depending on the campaign. If you have characters getting married to each other or NPCs after a long grip of sessions then there's a good chance that they will have some type of relationship more developed than what is originally given. Forcing a relationship for the sake of the game is a different story though, unless you're playing a really thick political game or something like L5R where relationships with other people tend to matter a lot more via mechanical representation and the like (Honor, Glory, etc).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
So while I like random encounters and wandering monsters rolling a d20 for every hour of rest is just kinda boring to me. But my table gets really tense over board games like Pandemic where a card draw can screw with the group. So while I wait for the Deck of Legends to ship I'm working on a way to have the table do it as a sort of party card draw instead. What I'm thinking is something like: The party gets two ally suits and two enemy suits. Probably decided by table vote or by who they've been cozying up to in game. Every party member flips two cards whenever they travel or set up camp. If there are more enemies than allies an encounter happens. Encounter is: Minions - Value of Ally number cards subtracted from value of Enemy cards Ally Faces subtracted from Enemy Faces. Split non minions between face cards of the two suits. For the exercise let's use Spades and Diamonds. Jack - Lurker(Spade), Skirmisher(Diamond) Queen - Artillery(Spade), Controller(Diamond) King - Soldier(Spade), Brute(Diamond) Enemy Aces force the party to draw another two cards, Ally Aces let the party take any one card out of the flop. Has anyone else tried something like this in an RPG? And did it work out to be fun or was it just too convoluted and boggy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
BioTech posted:The thing with the guards and everything is a good idea. Ah, I see what you mean. I'd meant to set it up as a choice between two undesirable options -- fessing up about their dark dealings, or getting into a fight they'd tried to avoid. Maybe his demands could be something less immediate, then, like "I want you to swear an oath now that when the Shadow Lord is dead you will not rest until my kingdom is freed from its necromantic oppressor"? quote:I like that idea, losing the Duke would be quite a blow to them. However, it seems a lot like punishing them. You killed a man, you lose your favorite NPC. I wouldn't say they lose him if he resigns his position. He's still an NPC who can give them directions and quests and things. The difference is that he doesn't have control of the kingdom any more, so they're no longer fighting the Shadow Lord in an official capacity. They're mavericks, loose cannons, and now have to worry about the official anti-Shadow Lord armies getting in their way and messing things up. quote:First plan is for them to get back and tell him what happened. The Mummy King won't be out for a few days, then still has to launch his whole campaign. So the Duke honestly doesn't know yet what happened and asks them. If they lie, he wouldn't know any better. Yet. After their next adventure he receives a box of heads with obvious Shadow King Agents, but the letter accompanying them is signed by someone else than the Sultan. He is happy things are getting dealt with over there, but curious about this new guy. Maybe he recognizes the name, maybe he doesn't, not sure yet. Finally, the idea is to get in reports about the oppression, people getting turned into Undead slaves and the Mummy King marching towards his country to join up, but demanding tributes along the way. This sounds like an excellent idea. I'd say that having reports about the oppression turning up would be an excellent place for the Vizier to show his face if you plan on using him as a political enemy, especially if they've previously covered up what they've been up to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
I think I've been going too soft on my players and they don't feel challenged enough as a result. So my question is: what are some good ways to up the challenge without being completely frustrating or removing to much player control? (I run a lot of investigative and exploration-type games, so adventure design advice is much more helpful than encounter design type advice.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
It depends on the setting/system, but in general, try leaving details open and basing the truth or outcome of an investigation on the ideas the players come up with as avenues of exploration. Specifically, sometimes make whatever their first idea is a red herring that leads them into trouble. The challenge can be on the players as they try to come up with another coherent idea that they find satisfactory among themselves. Make note of ideas and possibilities they bring up but decide not to follow up on- those can be good things to make true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Come up with a problem without knowing a solution for it - challenge to me doesn't mean 'they should nearly die', but 'they have to really use their brains'. On a similar vein, maybe they'll hit a choice that has no good answer, only a choice of who gets hurt and how badly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Sionak posted:I think I've been going too soft on my players and they don't feel challenged enough as a result. Difficult choices. Take a villain and make him interesting and sympathetic. Be prepared for an investigation or quest to fail. Have an ally ask them to do something questionable. Threaten something they care about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Difficult choices are absolutely what make games fun and interesting. Even if it's something like needing to choose which dungeon they explore next, knowing that the problem they ignore is going to get worse while they're away. Another general rule on making games tougher is to keep time pressure on the players. Establish one or more ongoing threats, and every time the party take time to rest and recover, show how it gets worse. You don't need a full-on timetable for how Armageddon will roll in, just continual reminders that every time they take a break they're losing ground to the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
What system would everyone recommend for a game involving the running of a factory? I was thinking of using The Quiet Year but maybe something with more crunch would be better? Even a board game that could be repurposed might be a potential solution. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
I guess it depends what part of that you want to emphasise in the game - will it be sourcing parts and labour, industrial espionage, or keeping it maintained? Will the players be workers, or in charge of it? FATE. Because I recommend it for everything. Even though it doesn't sound at all like what you want.  e: Now I'm thinking of the Hunger campaign for Paranoia (from WMD). Though that was less 'running a factory' and more 'oh. poo poo. shitshitshit.' petrol blue fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Uncle Khasim posted:What system would everyone recommend for a game involving the running of a factory? I was thinking of using The Quiet Year but maybe something with more crunch would be better? Mousetrap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:31
|
|
P.S. STILL COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MERIT
|
To go a bit against the current: don't exaggerate with "difficult choices". In fact, avoid if possible. There is nothing more frustrating for a player, I think. Imagine putting a character to a lot of danger, maybe surviving only because of some lucky rolls, only to be rewarded at the very end by an ugly choice between terrible event A or terrible event B. Moreover, the way I see it, it is just ugly railroading. Putting the characters in front of a tradeoff they have no power to subvert. In small doses it might be interesting, but it gets depressing easily. And what's the point of fighting dragons and killing monsters if then the characters are just impotent to get something decent out of their badassery? quote:(I run a lot of investigative and exploration-type games, so adventure design advice is much more helpful than encounter design type advice.) For example, once I made an adventure which was just shamefully copying of Le Carre's: Imagine the PCs are contacted by an informant that tells them their organization/kingdom/whatever has a mole. Now standard adventure is: gather scattered evidence that will uncover the mole. Fine, easy. Then put the mole on trial and be done with it. But now insert a mistery within it: all the evidence is fake and has been planted there by the opposition. This shouldn't be something you tell the PCs. This should be something they need to figure out, maybe because some evidence was too easy to obtain or doesn't corroborate well with other facts. But now insert a mistery within it: while the evidence is fake, the mole is real. The opposition wants the PC to put the mole on trial, then point out that the evidence is fake in order to avert the suspicion from the mole whose status within the organization is now enhanced. And this should be discoverable only if the PCs really are diligent/paranoid (maybe they counter-infiltrate,maybe they shadow/capture known enemy operatives, maybe they organize an operation of their own...). This sort of "layered" structure I always think work well for quests/rewards. Ending 1: the PCs gather the evidence, put the mole on trial, the mole wins the trial because the evidence is fake (reveal!), mole becomes more powerful (and maybe fools PCs too) Ending 2: the PCs find out that the evidence is fake and don't put the mole on trial. Enemy operation fails, but mole is still active Ending 3: the PCs expose the mole with real evidence, gain a billion xp and go get drunk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:And what's the point of fighting dragons and killing monsters if then the characters are just impotent to get something decent out of their badassery? Ah, you've got me rear end-backwards here: my take is that the impossible choice should be the start of the adventure. Present the PCs with 'horrible option A' and 'awful option B' - let them choose one of those if they want (and then move on or deal with the fallout), but also let them fight to find a third option. Sure, if they PCs go and slay the big bad and get rewarded with 'lol, you get back and goblins ate them', that sucks, but I don't think there's anything wrong with 'the town faces several threats, how are you going to organise them to keep as many people alive as possible'. e: I'm a horrible storygamer, but I don't think any character should survive because of a few lucky rolls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:e: I'm a horrible storygamer, but I don't think any character should survive because of a few lucky rolls. That's kind of a weird way of putting it. I mean, I'm not overly fond of characters solving all their problems by throwing dice at them, but if someone takes a stupid, dangerous risk and the dice say they make it I'm not going to take that away from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
quote:Sure, if they PCs go and slay the big bad and get rewarded with 'lol, you get back and goblins ate them', that sucks, but I don't think there's anything wrong with 'the town faces several threats, how are you going to organise them to keep as many people alive as possible'. Sorry I just got carried a bit there. I think we agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Uncle Khasim posted:What system would everyone recommend for a game involving the running of a factory? I was thinking of using The Quiet Year but maybe something with more crunch would be better? Kingdom by Ben Robbins might be a good fit. Ben's released a preview pdf of the game to backers only, so it might be a little hard to track down. You could set the Factory up as the kingdom, and each character has a role in the factory - Floor Manager, Owner, Union Rep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:To go a bit against the current: don't exaggerate with "difficult choices". In fact, avoid if possible. quote:Moreover, the way I see it, it is just ugly railroading. Putting the characters in front of a tradeoff they have no power to subvert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:This idea that players must be able to subvert decisions put before them tells me that you are approaching a situation as something to be solved or beaten. There is nothing more boring than when a choice is laid out before a character that might reveal something about that character and instead of making a character-based choice the player just "defeats" the choice. Defeating a choice is a non-choice. Option A and Option B are both interesting and difficult choices, but instead I cast Vance's Magical Bullshit and we get to skip to the next scene. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
A really useful tool I found one day on the wilds of the net was The Campaign Mastercraft Method, aka the 3x3. The folks of 4chan's /tg/ cooked this one up a few years ago, and I find it's the most useful thing for a GM and a player to try. With this, a GM can divine right away what a player wants from a campaign, can predict some intra-PC conflicts which could pop up, and they can make PCs come to life by challenging and engaging the PC's perceived values. Even as a player, I find this extremely useful from the roleplay side of things. Many new players I've met (note: I'm biased as I have a lot of theater geek friends) want to write pages and pages of backstory for how Snarf the Ratcatcher or Jangleshanks the Rogue became the person the are at the beginning of the campaign. This is really cool from a GM perspective (Backstory means they're interested in your campaign!) but it can also be very involved (sometimes they can ramble) and also it can be tricky to work this into the game's mechanics ("So barbarians don't get Knowledge:Planes as a class skill. But Uram is a tiefling raised by a fiendish parent; he should know this stuff!") Three sentences is snappy enough to be a quick read while giving a lot of tasty information a GM (or fellow player) can work with. Like the History Aspects from Spirit of the Century, they're concrete enough to give a scaffolding to draw from while being loose enough to be reshaped as necessary. ("You say Jim lost the family estate. Did you mismanage the money? Or were you swindled out of it!" "Whichever works better for the campaign!") The values are a good way to give your character a moral compass, and hammer out how they'd act (like Mouse Guard's Instinct mechanic). This is especially good for characters whose role is dictated by some kind of code of conduct, like the classic paladin. Rather than argue over definitions of Lawful Good-ness, players and GMs can decide how the character (and PC!) intend to carry out their duties. GMs can challenge their values without causing a bunch of alignment arguments. The 3 goals part is the one I find works the least well for me, as most PCs in games I've run constantly re-assess their goals session by session, and short-term goals often feel underwhelming in comparison to longer ones. Hasu the Courtesan may want to take a hot bath & change of clothes after travelling on the first session, but the achieving creature comforts seems almost pedestrian compared to obtaining The Royal Inks Of Enlightenment from The Heavenly Minister Of The Most Righteous Poison Quill. Still, these can work as good milestones to help a PC keep track of how they've progressed, and they can give a PC a sense of what they're working towards. Over the course of play, a PC might even abandon these goals. One Japanese-themed campaign saw me run a kitsune bard with the long-term goal "Cheat into the nobility and get the posh lifestyle I deserve." In the campaign, said bard developed fierce loyalty and affection to the Dragon Spirit which was our Emperor, and once calamity befell out kingdom and the Dragon-Spirit was reduced to a catatonic spirit totem, the self interest gave way to patriotic fervor, and the once self-serving con artist happily weathered the wilderness to restore His Imperial Majesty. The listed goal was abandoned, but it gave me a sense of the character's motivations and made for a helluva more interesting campaign. TL;DR - this method helps PCs show what they want to experience, and it shows GMs how to assemble a campaign which appeals to the players. [Edited to fix my own inability to make an image work. Thanks Bad Munki for saving me from my own retardation!] Sneebs fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Trying to hotlink from 4chan? Really? You might want to upload whatever it was you wanted to show us somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Lallander posted:Trying to hotlink from 4chan? Really? You might want to upload whatever it was you wanted to show us somewhere else. If you copy the image url and go there directly it works. Here ya go:
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
quote:It is quite a strawman to say that a difficult choice is always between two terrible outcomes. It could just as easily be between two wonderful yet mutually exclusive outcomes. The thing that makes it difficult is not that all options are bad - that is just an 'ugly' choice - it is that the players have reasons to choose each alternative and must accept an opportunity cost by making the choice. Such choices are IMO vital to players thinking and making decisions about their characters' personalities and priorities, and can lead to interesting discussion of the tradeoffs between the players at the table. The beauty of table rpgs is their sandbox nature. There is nothing that cheapens it more than arbitrary "decision points" where the DM decides it's time for PCs to make a choice. IMHO, of course. I like my adventures to be like the first Die Hard: european terrorists here, police outside, wife hostage, you on the roof. How do you proceed? What I hope my adventures never are is the Goblin dropping a bus full of New Yorkers on one side of the bridge and Spiderman's girlfriend on the other. Sure it's an hard choice, but it's a silly premise. quote:This pretty much gives me flashbacks to the 3.5 "a wizard did it" gaming experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Lallander posted:Trying to hotlink from 4chan? Really? You might want to upload whatever it was you wanted to show us somewhere else. That's from suptg, an archive site.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:I really disagree with this. Literally nobody is saying this when they talk about hard decisions. Introducing a hard decision isn't shorthand for the Gwen Stacy death scene. If at some point in a campaign the following happens: "The Warrior King you've been at war with has sent an envoy. He will agree to send troops and declare a ceasefire until the undead are dealt with. In return he asks that the prince(your fighter) solidify the alliance with a political marriage." And your Fighter has, "Walk the land as a free man" as one of his goals you've introduced a hard choice. A decent DM will make the undead a harder, more immediate, but passable threat if the Fighter refuses based on his character goals. Conversely the DM is going to have to get creative with some new fronts or immediate threats if the Fighter decides to marry into the rival kingdom for the greater good. He'll also have to address if the Prince can keep adventuring or use it as an opportunity to give Bob that reroll he's been asking for. I have players that I could see making either decision in that situation and the campaign will change due to the culmination of a player character's history and development. This is the exact opposite of railroading a campaign and possibly the most ham handed way I could think of do to this form of choice in an rpg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Hey guys, I've got a bit of a GM quandary and I'm hoping you all can help out. I'm running a Hackmaster 4th edition (basically a joke version of AD&D) in the Castle Greyhawk dungeon (basically a joke dungeon crawl). I'm trying to figure out how to get my hard-headed players to back out of an encounter they've already won but taken significant damage on, but with more enemies approaching. Basically as a group we're usually quite 'hack first, ask questions later', and we finished our last session with the tank PC heavily wounded and the rest of the PCs (thief, fighter/cleric, mage and archer) just finishing off some mooks that had tried to flank them while they were taking care of a big monster that sucked away loads of XP (from the fighter). They're mostly first-level PCs and I really want to make the group run off to lick their wounds, so I had some zombies shuffle around a corner, right before our session time limit came up. Of course, they want to rush into combat but I don't want them to encounter the necromancer running the zombies and bad guys yet. This is a 'between levels' mini-adventure meant to get them some xp and treasure so they level up before going into the 2nd level of the dungeon, so I don't want any of them to die (which in Hackmaster isn't hard to do). I don't want to have a literal horde of zombies piling out of the crypts they're in, because if they do run off they'll have to clear them all out when they come back. And on the flip side, if they bum rush the zombies and fight off the several they've seen so far...then what? They encounter the main bad guy and his bodyguard when they're down their strongest melee fighter? The group will probably not stop until they're all nearly dead, and then they might run off and say 'oh you made that so hard' and lose some of their enthusiasm for the setting. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get the players to back off? They have easy routes to escape (2 parallel corridors in the crypts leading back to their entry point) and the zombies are so far described as just shuffling around a distant corner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Hey guys, I've got a bit of a GM quandary and I'm hoping you all can help out. I'm running a Hackmaster 4th edition (basically a joke version of AD&D) in the Castle Greyhawk dungeon (basically a joke dungeon crawl). I'm trying to figure out how to get my hard-headed players to back out of an encounter they've already won but taken significant damage on, but with more enemies approaching. Tell them "hey, this next part is gonna be way too hard, it's meant for a rested party, back off"? If they insist, let them do it. If they die, rewind to the game state here and say "ok, so, how about you believe me in the future? Let's try this again..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Hey guys, I've got a bit of a GM quandary and I'm hoping you all can help out. I'm running a Hackmaster 4th edition (basically a joke version of AD&D) in the Castle Greyhawk dungeon (basically a joke dungeon crawl). I'm trying to figure out how to get my hard-headed players to back out of an encounter they've already won but taken significant damage on, but with more enemies approaching. It's Hackmaster. What are you doing trying to think of ways to keep your players alive? You're playing Hackmaster. If the notion of a half-healed party blundering their way into an encounter that is vastly too strong for them to handle at this time doesn't make you rub your hands together and cackle in anticipation then you're doing it wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Ha - yeah, I know, I know. The trouble is we've had a few sessions to learn the combat system (which has been a bit of a pain and limited how many things I can throw at the group), one PC has already been killed (yay, firing into melee and rushing forward to attack a giant!) and I don't want to pile on the annoyances because they haven't made backup characters - which would be their fault anyway, right?! Actually there are a couple of backups, but they're really the party pseudo-PCs to round out the group since there's only 3 players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Looking for some suggestions on a scenario I'm writing for Ashen Stars (Robin Law's space opera game for the Gumshoe system). It's meant to be a first play of the setting and system for a group of relatively experienced players, and I'm aiming for a Star Trek "morality stories and high-adventure" feel to the story and potential campaign. The concept I've laid out is as follows: the players are contracted to investigate a system with early interstellar-flight technology that has reported "Ashen Star" effects (bizarre solar flares/spots that tend to indicate something odd is going on in the area) and a mysterious alien satellite that's appeared. The players will discover that, in fact, the flares observed are the early signs of the system's sun about to age into a Red Giant, which will have disasterious effects on the civilization there, and the alien satellite is a probe from an unknown source that is designed to "re-light" the star and keep it from growing old. The twist on this is that the probe has achieved some level of consciousness and does not want to die. The issue I'm facing is that I want to pace the adventure out like an episode of Star Trek, and I'm worried the players will lock up. Ideally, I'd like the scenes to flow something like: 1) players arrive in system, talk to the locals 2) players meet with the probe and discover the real situation/twist 3) players leave the probe, do some legwork and get some experience with the combat system 4) players return to the probe and try to negotiate or force a resolution (convince the probe to sacrifice itself, let the probe live and the system die, come up with a win-win scenario if they push for it) My fear is that the players will hit (2) and and try to brute-force a solution, feeling like they can't or shouldn't leave to talk to the alien civilization or anyone else. I feel I need to have the probe give the team a side mission to get them away from it for a while. My current line of thinking is that the Probe has been monitoring radio transmissions from the civilization, which in part has led to it's current consiousness/fear. The players would ideally go back to the planet, locate this transmission, and return with some valueable explination that maybe helps open up the probe to sacrificing itself. Any thoughts on what this transmission could be? Or what else I could do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Ha - yeah, I know, I know. The trouble is we've had a few sessions to learn the combat system (which has been a bit of a pain and limited how many things I can throw at the group), one PC has already been killed (yay, firing into melee and rushing forward to attack a giant!) and I don't want to pile on the annoyances because they haven't made backup characters - which would be their fault anyway, right?! Actually there are a couple of backups, but they're really the party pseudo-PCs to round out the group since there's only 3 players. The only way I've known PCs to back down from a fight is if there a large pile of gold in the opposite direction of danger. What if they fight the Necromancer, and if they lose, the Necromancer doesn't kill them but instead keeps them alive for interrogation/experimentation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Guesticles posted:What if they fight the Necromancer, and if they lose, the Necromancer doesn't kill them but instead keeps them alive for interrogation/experimentation? You know what, I'm going to do this. At the start of the next session I'll drop a gentle hint that they should back off, and if they don't they'll get whupped and witness their new Evil Enemy make a zombie out of one of their acquaintances, and all of the living guys they just killed. I've always wanted to do the 'bad guy who is a few levels higher than the group and levels up at the same rate' thing, and this is a great opportunity for exactly that. This isn't even the main point of the game, but will make for good diversions if I'm ever stuck for something to annoy the players with outside of the dungeons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
krushgroove posted:You know what, I'm going to do this. At the start of the next session I'll drop a gentle hint that they should back off, and if they don't they'll get whupped and witness their new Evil Enemy make a zombie out of one of their acquaintances, and all of the living guys they just killed. Or have their characters restored as semi-autonomous undead under said necromancer, who is now their main guest giver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:33
|
|
