|
Unless you're Pavlov himself, you can't make the players use their abilities. What may work is to have a supporter, someone among the PCs who says "Hey, Wizard, can we get some fire here?" or "I ask the Cleric to talk to the priests, he has knowledge: Church Customs."
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Update on the "8 Pit Fiends + 2 level 20+ magic users + party of 9 PCs battle royale under 2nd edition rules" situation I was telling you guys about : finally got my buddy to send me the party's character sheets, and lo and behold the party is made up of 10th - 12th level characters. I just assumed we were dealing with epic characters with this kind of encounter composition but nope, it's a big dumb meat grinder and we're going to have a 2+ hour conference call tonight to completely rework this poo poo. LOL this is hilarious to me. Holy goddamned loving poo poo rear end motherfucking gently caress. OK, so here's something I didn't write earlier when I was assuming that the party wouldn't be less than half the level of the NPCs mentioned. The thing that makes Pit Fiends super hard to kill is the way they resist everything. If, in the final encounter of the campaign, there's a reason not to have the party empowered by some gods/angels/whatever* so that, oh, I dunno "Your blades shall be like unto the swords of the angels, and your fires like unto the lights of heaven" and they ignore the Fiends resistances. That's still not gonna be enough at level 12. Eight pit fiends, goddamn. e: Or you could do what a guy who described himself as a professional game master told me to do when I was 12**, and whenever the enemies are too strong just have the PCs blow them up with barrels of gunpowder  *Or make them into Einherijar. Not the planescape monster, the idea of warriors so valiant and skilled that they're selected for the Last Battle by the god of gods. ** I recognised him as a loving idiot at the time. Thinking back, he was a creepy loving idiot, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I have a player who likes to stay within her comfort zone of 1-2 abilities too. Some people seem to picture a hero as someone who does a handful of things really really well. I don't have a problem with it, but it can be a problem in games that assume a hero has many abilities. I'm not sure why a player would ever "take it personally" if you asked them why they weren't using all their abilities, either. Just talk to them. Maybe they don't like the character. Maybe they don't like the extra abilities they got to choose from. Maybe they're bored. If none of that is true, instead of subtle hints have an NPC yell at them - stuff like "LIGHT IT UP! ONLY FIRE WILL HURT IT!" What they yell doesn't even have to be true in the fiction. e: I meant to edit that into the previous post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:e: Or you could do what a guy who described himself as a professional game master told me to do when I was 12**, and whenever the enemies are too strong just have the PCs blow them up with barrels of gunpowder Ah, yes, the DOOM school of dungeon mastering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
One of the GM moves in Dungeon World is "Show a downside to their class". This includes throwing situations at them in which the things their class excels at aren't any use. If you can't think of any situations like that, then it's probably a sign that you aren't asking your players enough about what they're doing. When the wizard says "I cast magic missile!" don't just nod and go with that -- ask them what casting magic missile looks like. What does the wizard do to cast it? What happens when they cast it? What is a magic missile? Why does being hit by one hurt? The most important thing in Dungeon World is always to tie the moves your characters are using to the fiction. If the wizard waves his arms around to cast magic missile, then he can't cast it if a goblin has grabbed onto him and won't let go. If he scrunches up his brow and concentrates, then he can't cast it if a lot of distracting things are stopping him concentrating (at least, not without a Defy Danger on Wis). If the fighter is wielding a massive battleaxe, then he can't use any of his moves to cut people up with it if the passage he's in is too narrow to swing it in. Tie your characters' moves to the fiction and the fights will end up being fun even if the players use the same move over and over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Whybird posted:One of the GM moves in Dungeon World is "Show a downside to their class". This includes throwing situations at them in which the things their class excels at aren't any use. All good advice. I'm getting there, since my DW group graduated from playing modified Hero Quest, and we still use dungeon tiles and mini figs, they're really obsessed with party positioning. In the last session, I had them fight what I called a 'Cargo Wizard', a wizard employed by the king whose specialty was spells that move things from place to place. Fighter gets teleported to the top of a pillar and needs to find his way down, the wizard gets telekinesised into the fireplace, he casts magical nets etc and when they finally manage to get back to where they want to be, suddenly he's behind them. It frustrated them but entertained them at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
I don't even go for the added layer of obfuscation of having an NPC tell players what might be a good idea - I just tell them myself, though I recognize that that might not be to everyone's taste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I don't even go for the added layer of obfuscation of having an NPC tell players what might be a good idea - I just tell them myself, though I recognize that that might not be to everyone's taste. I meant if you somehow couldn't do that. The person who asked the original question mentioned that they thought some of the players would have a problem with being directly asked why they weren't using abilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I wasn't responding to anybody in particular. Yes, I agree that if it's an issue to do that then it should be avoided.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:It frustrated them but entertained them at the same time. If that's the group's experience, then you are doing everything right. A good villain will get your players do legitimately hate them for one reason or another, even if it is something silly like that. Especially something silly like that, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Update on the Pit Fiends fight: Really quite boring. Sorry folks, there's nothing really funny/fun to report. Due to our conference call the DM fiat'd a bunch of stuff in the player's favor (+1 or better weapons could hit them, the Pit Fiends could not Gate in reinforcements, they had magical cuffs that if you hit could dispel them) and the players had a lot of magical items, and there were also 6 slaadi in the fight as well (which meant a bunch of time was spent having two NPCs wack each other). Despite my friend's assurances, nothing was abstracted; I functioned as a human spreadsheet/calculator for 4.5 hours (setup and 1 combat round) and was super bored. Then I went home. Birthday wish fulfilled. I could tell you other stuff but it's really just Bad DM stuff (being more concerned how his DMPC was going to effect the fight; using a truly miserable, stupid adventure from Dragon #10 (yes Dragon #10, published in the 70s) as the bones for this adventure, etc. etc. etc.) but who cares? One of the players made a joke about 4e rounds taking longer than an hour each so they were still "winning" or something, idk. The player himself is very nice, but this is the kind of stupid/bad opinions that I had to deal with. One of the players asked me if I thought their characters were a bunch of badasses and I had to bite my tongue to keep from pointing out how pathetic this was. I guess everything went ok after I left though. Good for them. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Does anyone have any advice for nautical battles? I'm running a D20 system game set in the 90s. Neo-noir with supernatural horror elements. The players are all CoC type characters, though it's not CoC. I've got a private medical examiner who's a conspiracy theorist, a drunk private detective, and... Well, an archeologist/arcane lore professor that is a love letter to Indiana Jones. They're all privately contracted investigate the death of a man's 11 year old neice, for the criminal defense of their patron's little brother. She entered Sea World with her parents. Her parents left hours later. Her mutilated body washes ashore a couple miles away, two days later, covered in a disgusting sputum. Her parents have no memory of what happened there, and because of this, they're suspects. The players, well, I'm writing my game to their interests. One, she loves conspiracies, The X-Files and has a medical degree. Another is just a huge 90's music nerd who loves playing detective so much he works for a software company that makes point and click adventures for a living. The third player, Indiana, he's a big fan of nautical themed books, movies, games. His character lives in a house boat off the coast of San Diego. After buying a whip, he then he went and spent most of his starting wealth buying boats. He took a bunch of starting feats to bump up his navigate skill to a crazy level. So it's obvious, this friend wants to adventure into the ocean. This was a happy accident as the monster responsible for the death in their first case is an Aboleth. They think it's Cthuhlu or some cult or something, naw... Just an aboleth. Sea World tourists would naturally be the best place for an aboleth to hide away and enslave large groups of people. Dolphin hats, which could be their version of mickey mouse ears, were worn by worshippers of Dagon, Oannes and Adepu in ancient times. Dolphins were seen as creatures that carry away the spirits of the dead. The buttons and pins they sell, perfect places to put an Aboleth's magical glpyhs. Plus Sea World's a loving evil place irl, so, heh, it's poetic justice for an evil company like that to be enslaved by an ancient psychic sea creature due to how they treat orcas. ANYWAY.... Aboleth's never get their due as monsters.. I was hoping the PC's first case could culminate in a boat vs. Aboleth fight. Thing is, I'm not too sure how to design an awesome boat vs sea monster encounter. I've designed successful encounters that happened on a boat, sure, but that fight began and stayed on the boat itself. I've designed a successful underwater Aboleth vs. Party fight, but that was in D&D with caster PC's that could allow for such a thing. Like Spoony once said, Never Get On The Boat, doesn't apply to this party, or this situation really. I'm kind of puzzled on how to run a good boat (with 2 gunmen) vs. magical sea monster fight. Are there any examples of, I dunno, say a Shadowrun or GURPS module that contains a good modern boat vs. Sea Monster fight? Does anyone have any tips? Anyone have experience running anything similiar? Would 3 Level 3 Skill Monkeys, given a nice boat, a grenade launcher and other firearms be able to take an Aboleth? Or would this just be way past their appropriate challenge rating? Thoughts? God Of Paradise fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
When all else fails, air tank. You know it's gonna happen, so be ready to roll with them to pull a Jaws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
There was a discussion a while ago about doing a boat fight in 4e, but it's way upthread and I dunno how you'd find it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
As a GM, how much leeway can/should I have to play a game that I want? Say, if I advertised for a 3.5E/PF game with only Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Rogues are allowed, or a B/X game without the Thief, or telling the players going in that I'm going to be banning certain spells? I keep thinking it's like a free-market thing where if I'm being unreasonable then no one will sign up in the first place, but I'm trying to account for the fact that there might be far less GMs than there are players and maybe I'm being a dick. I try to tell myself that I'm doing this because I think it's going to make for a better experience - I try to handle as much of the admin for the players as possible, and dealing with huge spell lists just gives me a headache, same with not wanting to saddle players with an inferior class, trying to improve balance, and so on and so forth, but maybe that's just a rationalization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a GM, how much leeway can/should I have to play a game that I want? I think given the systems you're using that restricting to non-magic classes is an interesting twist. But if you really hate magic in those systems, why not use a different system instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Just talk to your players. Tell them what you're trying to do. See if they're even interested in it. I emailed a document with all of my house rules to my group before starting my new campaign just to make sure everyone was OK with it. But instead of outright banning spellcasting, why not just limit casting classes to those without full caster progression? Also, I find that one of the best ways to make non-casters more powerful is to just house rule away all the dumb feat taxes. In my game I combined Point Blank and Precise into one feat, got rid of Weapon Finesse and made Finesse-able weapons automatically use Dex to hit, changed Monks to get full BAB and Flurry as a standard action, etc. And take a look at Path of War for Pathfinder. It makes martial characters way more interesting. deedee megadoodoo fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I think given the systems you're using that restricting to non-magic classes is an interesting twist. But if you really hate magic in those systems, why not use a different system instead? Because I think the rest of the system is good and workable. And those were just sort of examples off the top of my head, it's really more of a general question of "is it cool to impose your houserules on a game from the very beginning just because you're the one running it?" That is, I could just as easily look at running a game where everyone is a Wizard so that I don't have to worry about other characters getting left behind, and having to get to know the spells is okay if I don't have to know anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
As long as the DM can present a clear picture of what kind of game he wants, and is ready to accept that the players might think it's a pile of poo poo, then it's ok to set restrictions. As far as "balancing" 3.5E is concerned though, I think that if you advertised it as a Tier 3 & 4 game instead of arbitrarily banning classes you would get more traction with the players, and you would offer them more options than just a different flavor of full attack. Of course the tier system is just an internet thing, but for some reason seems to have been more or less accepted as a fact by the community. Seems so to me at least. In any case, I really like the T3 classes and might actually remotely consider the faint possibility of maybe attempting to play 3.5E again (maybe) if it was restricted to just those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Because I think the rest of the system is good and workable. And those were just sort of examples off the top of my head, it's really more of a general question of "is it cool to impose your houserules on a game from the very beginning just because you're the one running it?" The important part is that the players want to participate and you can make it fun. Houserule it to death, make everyone exclusively mundane or make everyone exclusively wizards, whatever you want. If the players are cool with it and enjoying themselves, you've succeeded. I actually think it could be interesting with the right players and GM to do a campaign that restricts classes as part of a way of telling a specific story. Like having all of the players be members of the Thieves' Guild or an academy of magic, which obviously requires them to spec themselves in a way that makes sense with the background.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I actually think it could be interesting with the right players and GM to do a campaign that restricts classes as part of a way of telling a specific story. Like having all of the players be members of the Thieves' Guild or an academy of magic, which obviously requires them to spec themselves in a way that makes sense with the background. My current game has everyone starting as part of the military. They have rank and sometimes disputes are resolved just by a player going "I'm in charge. We're doing this my way" and everyone goes along with it, though sometimes begrudgingly. It's an interesting twist that I haven't seen before. Motivations for joining the military were left up to the individual player. One of them comes from a minor noble house and joined the military just as all of his forefathers did. The Warpriest joined as a battle medic because it fulfilled both his sense of duty to the church and his need to hit people with a mace. A petty thief was pressed into service when given the option "you can go to jail or you can work off your debt to society in the army." I kinda like how they all have different reasons for ending up where they are, but have found a common bond in the military. Plus it makes adventure hooks a lot easier to write. And we end up with exchanges like this: "Now can someone tell me again why we're trudging through the mud a hundred miles from the closest tavern?" "Captain Elserth says we've gotta find out what happened to his scouting party." "I think the elf means, 'why are we walking instead of riding on horseback?'" "No, I meant 'why in the bloody hell did we join the army?' My face is cold. My boots are wet. And I haven't had a decent meal in days." "I could really use a nice bowl of hot anything right now." "Pipe down, the lot of you. You're here because the Captain says so. More grunt, less gripe." "Yes sir!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Because I think the rest of the system is good and workable. And those were just sort of examples off the top of my head, it's really more of a general question of "is it cool to impose your houserules on a game from the very beginning just because you're the one running it?" There's a messload of systems that are way better at "everybody is a wizard" than D&D, though. I would not want to inflict D&D on an all wizard party as a GM. Run that thing in a FATE hack, Mage, or Ars Magica- something where the whole party won't be restricted to "x things per day" and has the ability to come up with effects on the fly, while also examining the act of spellcasting itself with more of a crunchy focus. I agree tentatively that a "no spellcasters" hack of D&D is viable, since it is built around a gooey center of tactical combat, but you'd have to be confident enough as a GM to balance your encounters around the fact that nobody can heal, buff, or inflict/cure status effects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
If you want a d20 game that's mostly wizard-free, why not use Iron Heroes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Thank you all for the advice. I suppose it all does come down to communication and getting interested players in the first place. I completely planned to do that.Lynx Winters posted:If you want a d20 game that's mostly wizard-free, why not use Iron Heroes? I tried to read my way through IH and it was so dense, though. I don't know if it just hasn't clicked yet, but it's like they took 3.5 and added yet another layer of rules on top of it altogether. I found Tome of Battle to be much easier to comprehend. deadly_pudding posted:There's a messload of systems that are way better at "everybody is a wizard" than D&D, though. I would not want to inflict D&D on an all wizard party as a GM. Run that thing in a FATE hack, Mage, or Ars Magica- something where the whole party won't be restricted to "x things per day" and has the ability to come up with effects on the fly, while also examining the act of spellcasting itself with more of a crunchy focus. Yeah, understood. Again, it was more a general question about how entitled am I to houserule a game, across either scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah, understood. Again, it was more a general question about how entitled am I to houserule a game, across either scale. You're entitled to houserule all you want, but it will benefit everybody involved if you get the whole group on board with it ahead of time. My experience is that people get a little pissed off when you introduce a rule that influences their character progression and/or play options out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah, understood. Again, it was more a general question about how entitled am I to houserule a game, across either scale. It's clear you know the most important part of the answer to your question: communicate your changes. After that, go wild and if you're up front and open and if anyone avoids your game because of what you've put out there, and you for some reason find out about it, you have either dodged a bullet or have an opportunity to get better at describing your hobby and gaming style. Win-win. For what it's worth, I'd walk right past any game with 20 pages of house rules meticulously documented. (Not saying you're planning that; just an example at the extreme.) In general I'd prefer more adaptation and experimentation as a campaign develops, and I push back pretty hard when the rules start getting in the way (or I just completely disengage). So in my case, putting the rules up first could help you dodge the bullet that is me; a player that might be a total rear end in a top hat in your game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah, understood. Again, it was more a general question about how entitled am I to houserule a game, across either scale. I've always approached this the same as running a less-common system. "Hey guys, I want to play this game with these changes. The setting is this, and the assumptions are these. Who wants in?" So like "Hey guys, I want to play an all-martials D&D 3.5. The setting concept is "sorta like the conan stories". The assumptions are that you're barbarians and soldiers and thieves and that magic is done by evil wizards, corrupt priests, and weird desert hermits, and you will be killing them for revenge, glory, or just to take their stuff".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Hey guys, I want to play an all-martials D&D 3.5. The setting concept is "sorta like the conan stories". The assumptions are that you're barbarians and soldiers and thieves and that magic is done by evil wizards, corrupt priests, and weird desert hermits, and you will be killing them for revenge, glory, or just to take their stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Yeah, you couldn't pay me to run 3.5 again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
That's fine, I don't mind digging out my 2nd Ed. books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
The last time I ran 3.5 was that kind of campaign; it wasn't hard to get the players hooked on the Tome of Battle classes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Or just go for a generic or otherwise malleable system that has few enough rules and caveats set in stone that your "houserules" are basically the way it's meant to be done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Impose the house rule of "we're playing dungeon world." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:All good advice. I'm getting there, since my DW group graduated from playing modified Hero Quest, and we still use dungeon tiles and mini figs, they're really obsessed with party positioning. In the last session, I had them fight what I called a 'Cargo Wizard', a wizard employed by the king whose specialty was spells that move things from place to place. Fighter gets teleported to the top of a pillar and needs to find his way down, the wizard gets telekinesised into the fireplace, he casts magical nets etc and when they finally manage to get back to where they want to be, suddenly he's behind them. It frustrated them but entertained them at the same time. Honestly, I'd recommend pretty strongly not to use minis with Dungeon World. I tried it. All it did was encourage my players to get really finnicky about positioning, how far they could move, which enemies their attacks could hit, and that kind of thing. I learned pretty quickly not to do that again and instead just work harder to describe what's going on. That Cargo Wizard fight sounds awesome as hell, though. I don't see why it wouldn't be just as awesome without minis, but I love the idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Agreed on not using minis - last fight in DW was awesome, mainly because it was a story of a fight - we swashbuckled, gladiated, and sure, we fudged bits of it, but that resulted in things like "the Punk wallruns off the ziggaraut and ties the dinosaur's legs with the whip, AT-AT style." If that description doesn't sell you on it then you are dead inside. e: But sure, if you prefer 'I move 3 squares towards the dino then full attack it', go ahead. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I used minis in DW only when positioning WAS important. That is, a freefall fight down a giant cavern, and you had to defy danger to move more than 1 zone up or down. It led to things like the hunter ripping off a pterodactyl's wings and using it to flap up so the air mage could steady herself and concentrate. BTW, Iron heroes is exactly Conan the d20 RPG. You'll save a lot of time starting there and engage more of the system. Can fighters, rogues and barbarians even attack Reflex, Fort or Will saves without items?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
We don't use movement squares or anything, its basically just to shorthand how many bad guys there are and where they are in relation to the heroes. Since I have a ton of monsters and stuff from various games, I can save time on describing basic facts, like this orc has a giant two handed sword and the one next to him has a spear etc, plus I have less things to track in my head (since I like to throw big groups at them). We use some tilesets but I prefer drawing things out on the wet erase battle mat, it let me do an encounter outside a castle that had traveled through a rift where the terrain had a lot of various hazards like slow time, low/extreme gravity heat and cold, etc, so they had to carefully pick their way through or use one zone to get past another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
I use lego for the maps. Works like a charm. Grid paper for drawing on, and all the characters have lego characters with little lego tiles so that they don't fall over. That Lord of the Rings lego set has payed back its price multiple times over at this point. Also, I have players who go NUTS for customizing their tiny little lego representations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Torquemadras posted:I use lego for the maps. Works like a charm. Grid paper for drawing on, and all the characters have lego characters with little lego tiles so that they don't fall over. That Lord of the Rings lego set has payed back its price multiple times over at this point. Also, I have players who go NUTS for customizing their tiny little lego representations. Recommendation: get one of these for a base, and it'll fit inside a 1-inch grid 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Ohgod, that's the most amazing idea, and yeah, I would totally go nuts customising!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:06
|
|