|
Mr. Grapes! posted:I'm pretty sure most tabletop RPGs just straight out say that players are allowed to try to do anything that their characters could conceivably do. Often this is covered under some stat checks or something, but the usual rule for doing something not covered by the rules is "The DM thinks of something." ...Though, I mean, what you've described here is "The GM thinks of something", but it's also: "Do some research on the spot" "Make a guess" "Apply game rules constructs that seem relevant, even if it's not what they were designed for" "Approximate something from other, similar rules" "Offer how you're intending to apply it and what it would require of the players, letting them choose to take or reject the deal" As contrasted to: "Reject it as impossible or out of scope for the game" (I'd do this if I were running a game that was like, resolutely not about having cannibalism in it, for example!) "Offer an alternate solution to the problem in the world" ...These are all different forms of "The GM thinks of something", and I mean, some are cool and relevant to the game and some are inappropriate and could be done poorly, but all of these aspects represent a mix of learned skills and experiences, I think? And the big question here in this thread is: "How did we get these in the first place? How did we know that the tactics we're choosing to apply are good and appropriate? How did we get our tools for thinking on the spot?"
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:I'm kind of confused by this. What would be the big drat problem if the players collapse a mine on some orcs? Well, okay. Let's say you want a game about players collapsing mines on orcs. Let's call it Supports & Superstructure. You'd probably want some rules for how long it takes down to bring down certain kinds of infrastructure, some outright rules or at least guidelines for what can go wrong, prices for the equipment needed, for hirelings you might want to bring along, the effect of violated OSHA regulations on hireling morale vs how much faster it makes the job go. If people were playing Supports & Superstructure, and instead went: "Actually we just want to go in there and hit the orcs in the head with their pickaxes instead," something the system has no rules for, and which the GM would have to invent from whole cloth or just adjudicate on the fly... then I would say: Either this is not the game for the players and their desires(they don't really enjoy the load-bearing-column table and prefer the table of critical hits from Combat & Tactics), or the game is badly designed(because it turns out that even stacking the deck completely in their favour, any given mine collapse has a 45% chance of killing a player character outright) because a given group of players will not want to engage with its rules, and instead want the GM to invent another system. Does it make more sense from this reversed perspective? If the players are essentially rewarded for not playing the game, for in fact playing a completely different game... then either the game is badly suited to the group, or fundamentally badly designed. Obviously players will always sometimes want to do something not accounted for by the game. But if it's consistent, then there is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
That makes sense to me. That said, my OSR game of choice, WWN - OSR being the genre in which people are most likely to say "avoid the combat system at all costs!" about - (as opposed to say a game where people have obviously signed up for the combat subsystem and it's an assumption of the game that you do it a lot, or a game that doesn't have that distinct of a combat subsystem like FATE) - I think people kinda exaggerate the degree to which you avoid fights. I mean, you can get really good at fighting. The Warrior class is very strong at fights. You hit people and kill them, with your weapon, a lot. If you aren't a Warrior you aren't really that good at fights but you're very good at "making skill checks and having special talents that make you good at doing non-combat stuff" (Expert) or "waving your hands and saying magic words that completely resolve a situation as long as no one manages to hit you while you're doing it" (Mage). That's less "avoiding the rules system" but "trying to choose how you interact with the game to focus on your strengths". But also, combat... isn't really complicated? Mostly people just rush in and hit each other for a bit, a bunch of attacks are made, reasonably fast a few people are on the ground dying and morale checks are being made. That means that the choice the game is asking you to make - where the weight of its rules are - isn't "What do you do when you're in a fight?" and "How can you approximate whether a fight is one you can win, and how can you change the odds if it isn't?" So, it feels less like "Never get in a fight", but "Never get in a fair fight". And the rules actually matter for that - they serve as a fair judgment on what makes a fight fair, what situations might create unfair fights, and how you might think about how to create them. And the game actually spends a lot of words on talking about how these judgement calls and what-you-might-wanna-try might play out - it might not have strict step by step procedures for it, but that's rules text too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
DNE posted:So, it feels less like "Never get in a fight", but "Never get in a fair fight". And the rules actually matter for that - they serve as a fair judgment on what makes a fight fair, what situations might create unfair fights, and how you might think about how to create them. And the game actually spends a lot of words on talking about how these judgement calls and what-you-might-wanna-try might play out - it might not have strict step by step procedures for it, but that's rules text too. Which is absolutely a fair tack to take, as long as the game also provides support for these unfair fights, perhaps some pre-made calls or guidelines for what happens if you flashbang your enemies before rushing in, get them in an ambush, outnumber them severely, collapse the building they're taking cover in, etc. rather than expecting the GM to invent it all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:I'm kind of confused by this. What would be the big drat problem if the players collapse a mine on some orcs? This response kinda started as a response to Valentin's posts, but it works just as well as a response here. Basically, when people talk about tabletop role-playing games, it's generally using a specific definition of game that's in line with video game and board game and not the more freeform style of improv game or "relax, the kids are just playing games". (I'm leaving the definition at that because I have too much of a headache to make sweeping definitions for key terms. Hopefully you get what I mean.) And one thing about that subset of games is that the specific mechanics of them are one of the reasons why people choose one over another. You play Wingspan because (among other reasons) you think the mechanics of Wingspan are interesting and you want to play with them. But also, say you met up with your friends to play Wingspan and when you get there everyone is just using the cards to play a weird form of blackjack. You're probably going to have a good time with friends, and you still get to look at all the cool bird art, but also... why did you bother carrying the whole Wingspan box and learning all the Wingspan rules if you were just going to play blackjack? That is the problem you run into with the mine-collapsing scenario. Through clever play, you've bypassed all the combat mechanics. The combat mechanics that 75% of the book is used to teach you, which the party priest was really looking forward to interacting with. For that matter, take your cannibalism example. If we were playing a game with interesting mechanics for foraging, I would be feeling really conflicted when the party had a really interesting moment that completely bypassed some mechanics I wanted to play with. And that conflict is the failure that PurpleXVI was referring to. Of course, that conflict isn't inevitable. There's a lot of games whose mechanics make room for players doing weird mechanic-bypassing stuff. And, more to the point of this thread, there's a lot of games that take the time to make sure new players learn to be excited for the underlying conceit of the game instead of laser-focusing on the specific mechanics. To pull an example off the top of my head, Thirsty Sword Lesbians spends as much time getting people invested in queer romantic genre action, and it's clear that most of that is going to be freeform RP with the mechanics as a guide. Or to pull an example from the 90s when this was a much more universal problem, look at Unknown Armies trying to teach people that this is a game where combat should be avoided before teaching them combat. It's all about setting expectations when writing your manual and making sure everyone is excited for what's cool in play. EDIT: On a lighter note, it took me until literally just now to realize your username is Grapes! and not Grapsel. Which makes a lot more sense, now that I'm thinking about it. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Which is absolutely a fair tack to take, as long as the game also provides support for these unfair fights, perhaps some pre-made calls or guidelines for what happens if you flashbang your enemies before rushing in, get them in an ambush, outnumber them severely, collapse the building they're taking cover in, etc. rather than expecting the GM to invent it all. Yup! I think it's up to you how well any given game succeeds at that, but I will say that WWN tries pretty hard, at least - like, that's what about the rules for morale checks and what might force morale checks are for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
It’s fascinating to catch up on this thread because this latest exploration about mines and stairs is something that came up in the precursor to D&D and Castle Blackmoor, which was Braunstein I. I recommend checking out “Secrets of Blackmoor” for the in depth details, but here’s a brief summary. The Lake Geneva war game minis crew would often get together to play games but one such time would feature a pregame of sorts to set the theater of war and the tone. In a pre-WW2 era in the city of Braunstein, players were randomly assigned roles with objectives and secrets - one person could be a student, another the mayor, and so on. The referee would describe or make judgments that players brought to them while interacting with each other (keeping in mind this was a large group and none of them had the explicit goal of playing friendly with everyone). Dave Arneson was taken out early but got to sit and watch the game unfold as a result in which things spiraled marvelously out of control, given the referee’s original design and intent went right out the window. This, coming from a well established play group that was experiencing a new social context would go on to inspire further games of its kind, ultimately developing into Castle Blackmoor after Dave Arneson had grown a bit. His interactions then with Gary Gygax would go on to make an attempt to market a version of Blackmoor as the first Dungeons and Dragons game set. That story in and of itself is great because even before formalized widespread rules were a thing the same kinds of conversations happened. Braunstein I (of many) was considered a failure on the referee’s point of view because of how wildly it had diverged from original intent, but everyone else - including Arneson - couldn’t wait for another round of it. Wargaming be damned, this was an excellent activity by itself. The same referee would go on to run more iterations of Braunstein before Blackmoor started having learned from this emergent experience, and if anybody had anything to say about it, it’s that it took awhile to organize. People see these kinds of back and forth conversations all the time. The rules and the game are what the group makes of them. If the group can’t communicate their wants and needs in service of the game then there was a breakdown in communication and negotiation. Getting to that point for each human in the group is to provide structure for the play and let that poo poo go. Rules should be implicit but social contracts ought be more explicit in such cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
I cracked my copy of OSE to check, and the combat rules are 7 pages (including optional rules and reference tables) at the very back of the book. Out of a 250 page PHB. The repeat assertion by the thread that combat is the core of the game, and that anyone who circumvents combat is playing the game wrong, is obviously wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:I'm pretty sure most tabletop RPGs just straight out say that players are allowed to try to do anything that their characters could conceivably do. Often this is covered under some stat checks or something, but the usual rule for doing something not covered by the rules is "The DM thinks of something." Plutonium Rule, check  But I think Purple’s point, which I agree with, is not that it’s a problem if the PCs do this; it’s a problem with the game design if the game expects the PCs to in order to have a good play experience. If an RPG had no combat system, but just said “if the PCs fight they die”, then we wouldn’t say that’s a fantastic game because it gives the PCs the strongest possible encouragement to come up with creative solutions to conflict. We would say it’s a cop out. And if the combat system is fun and mathematically balanced, why wouldn’t the players want to engage with it? Now it’s a reasonable argument that this acts as a negative influence, discouraging player creativity, but if the fight is fun does that really matter? I hate to quote them but one of the groggier forums talked about “playing house” as “magical tea party”. Which sounds sarcastic, but was clarified by saying: “Magical tea party can be a great game and a lot of fun, but I already know how to play it. So does everyone. So why should we pay for a rulebook?”
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
mellonbread posted:The repeat assertion by the thread that combat is the core of the game, and that anyone who circumvents combat is playing the game wrong, is obviously wrong. If you use page count as the definition of what the core of a game is, then the core of 90% of D&D variants would be casting spells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
hyphz posted:If you use page count as the definition of what the core of a game is, then the core of 90% of D&D variants would be casting spells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
Creative ways to bypass fights should be encouraged when players are having fun with that. You can always find an excuse to railroad them into another fight. Maybe the mine collapse wakes up an appropriate level burrowing creature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
hyphz posted:And if the combat system is fun and mathematically balanced, why wouldn’t the players want to engage with it? Now it’s a reasonable argument that this acts as a negative influence, discouraging player creativity, but if the fight is fun does that really matter? A. Yeah, I mean, I agree, in everything from "the combat rules are fun and why we're there" (Lancer, Fabula Ultima, D&D4, TSL) to "the combat rules aren't necessarily the heart of the game, but an important tool in the toolbox" (WWN, FATE, and so on), the rules are there so that you can use them. B. ...But I think, like, does everyone know how to play magical tea party? Do we always play it in the same way? PBTA games have their agendas - rules you follow when deciding what happens, even without hitting anything that feels "rules like". There are examples in this thread of "the GM just makes something up" which actually lean a lot on expectations of how the game works and what it expects and what's valuable in it. When I just make something up in FU, it's really different from how I just make something up in WWN, and that's determined by how the game told me how to play it, which all the other players can agree, read in the book, and load into their mindset as they start to play. What matters in the game, what's valuable, what you consider when deciding what happens next - these flow from the rules too, even if they're from parts of the rules that aren't math, character sheets, "crunch".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
mellonbread posted:I cracked my copy of OSE to check, and the combat rules are 7 pages (including optional rules and reference tables) at the very back of the book. Out of a 250 page PHB. To be fair, two things for me personally. 1) It's partially exaggerating for effect 2) 90% of this thread is posts from OSR nerds. I started with D&D 3.5, Exalted and nWoD, and eventually bounced into Fate and PBTA. My conception of a perfectly average RPG is different from yours. (Also I am kind of questioning whether we're using different definitions of "about combat", but that's probably getting further into bickering about specific games than either of us wants to get into.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
DNE posted:A. Yeah, I mean, I agree, in everything from "the combat rules are fun and why we're there" (Lancer, Fabula Ultima, D&D4, TSL) to "the combat rules aren't necessarily the heart of the game, but an important tool in the toolbox" (WWN, FATE, and so on), the rules are there so that you can use them. Yeah, lopping off most of the actual experience of playing the game as "magical tea party" is precisely the kind of thing I was talking about earlier. We're so blind to the idea that "magical tea party" is its own game with its own largely unspoken rules (which many more formal games of D&D or whatever retroclone will dip into, from time to time, at these lacunae where the written rules cease to function) that we don't even really talk about it. Even though unpacking our understanding of its core rules and knowing how to briefly play it well and return back to the more formal written rules experience after is one of the most important and hardest things to figure out from game to game, and differing approaches and assumptions about "magical tea party" (which can and often do spring from varying understandings of how the written rules suggest it should be played) are at the core of a lot of problems and conflicts that can arise in a playgroup. Valentin fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Yeah. Though... are they still unspoken, or have people just gotten used to glazing over those rules when talking about the game, as "fluff that doesn't really count as rules"? In a PBTA game (aside from like, the most ultra-ceremonialized of them, like Firebrands), that stuff is very, very strongly spoken, down to "if you hit a trigger for a move you have to do it", and "The GM is to describe things based on these motivations, which are specific to the game". FITD games have negotiating for position and effect. A Kevin Crawford OSR game is chock-full of directions on how to use your prep and make calls. Fabula Ultima, similarly, has its Eight Pillars. My memories of older games are a little hazier, but maybe there's been a sea change? Anyone want to compare with other things from their table?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
I don't really want to play out cannibalism scenarios, so I wouldn't put my players into one, and I would shoot down if they asked if they could butcher a prisoner of theirs for rations. I'd also say a granular hypothetical like that is really getting off track about learning to play RPGs, unless we plan on discussing the ways we depersonalize NPCs and player actions and find ourselves comfortable with all sorts of extremely graphic poo poo that sounds a bit crazy to talk about playing out in a social game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
hyphz posted:If you use page count as the definition of what the core of a game is, then the core of 90% of D&D variants would be casting spells. Imagine an alternate version of D&D where the spells section has, like, two spells per level, and instead the books were 90% combat stances and battle techniques for the slicey-dicey classes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
The vast majority of games that were commercially viable when self-publishing wasn't as easy as it was in the modern era generally meant that a for profit enterprise like TSR, Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and so on had to continue producing new stuff. That new stuff, it turns out, was rules, and more specifically, options for players and referees to use in their games. These were ideas to be imported into a game, but most to all of them that were rules system specific did not address the social rules for magical tea party - instead, they gave more options on how a fighter can bonk monsters, thirty new dragons, or some other concept that people were willing to throw some bucks at. The vast majority of published content in the modern era after the OGL came out also meant that people would model and release things that sold - namely, more rules. There are very few books that cover the specifics of pacing, social organization, effective preparation for referees, and almost no books dedicated to teaching how to play a game. There's Odyssey and Never Unprepared by Engine Publishing, Hamlet's Hit Points by Robin Laws, The Lazy DM's Guide by Mike Shea, as well as a whole host of things to procedurally build things like worlds, characters, dungeons, what have you. However, those books do not sell nearly as well as any of the games which would benefit the most from having people read them. I think with the specific more narrative driven games resetting the stakes and also engineering rules for play help to reinforce what the game is indeed going for. Forged in the Dark games have a sense of desperation and hope through them which is dictated on their results and outcomes, and the concept of clocks itself is used to say "you may have unlimited resources of everything else, but you don't have unlimited time, so make it count". I believe that more modern games are trending towards as DNE puts "ultra-ceremonialized" rules for social conduct in a game. Triggers for explicit moves, declaring stakes, and other such things are relatively new concepts. I'll touch on AGON a moment, which is about Greek mythology heroic types going from island to island on their heroic journey. While conflict, particularly combat, features a central role in it, there is a specific set of rituals that is used when a challenge is presented. The dice themselves are arrayed after the scene has been set, and a question is posed directly to the players: "Many have tried to solve the sea dragon's riddle and failed, being devoured into the crushing depths. Who among you will stand against this challenge?" to which one or more players invokes the name of their mythological character, replying that that they will go to meet it: "Agnosis the Wise shall stand against this challenge!" And so on. That's a kind of ritualized center piece that may be abstracted to something as simple in other games as "roll for initiative". I believe that "magical tea party" chat focuses on the "Wonder and Explore" phases of play. Rather than being unspoken, it could be that people don't talk about it as Valentin mentions because people are blind - why they are blind may be due to improper setup and telegraphing of what kind of magical tea party someone is walking into, or it could be because they aren't just blind, but people aren't trained on how to see it anymore. This would also explain why, in some cases, players who are brand new to games tend to fare better at certain tables than players who have lots of gaming experience, or specialize in a specific game and its rules. Putting a rugby player into a soccer match could have potentially disastrous results but they will be able to fend for themselves; taking an entire soccer team and putting them in front of typewriters to write Shakespeare without actually explicitly telling them what they can do is going to be a tall order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
ActingPower posted:Imagine an alternate version of D&D where the spells section has, like, two spells per level, and instead the books were 90% combat stances and battle techniques for the slicey-dicey classes. Level Up tries. It doesn’t manage it but it tries. As for those GM advice books, they almost universally have the problem that they describe what the desirable results are, but not how to achieve them. Also, Never Unprepared is terrible. hyphz fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:I'll touch on AGON a moment, which is about Greek mythology heroic types going from island to island on their heroic journey. While conflict, particularly combat, features a central role in it, there is a specific set of rituals that is used when a challenge is presented. The dice themselves are arrayed after the scene has been set, and a question is posed directly to the players: "Many have tried to solve the sea dragon's riddle and failed, being devoured into the crushing depths. Who among you will stand against this challenge?" to which one or more players invokes the name of their mythological character, replying that that they will go to meet it: "Agnosis the Wise shall stand against this challenge!" And so on. That's a kind of ritualized center piece that may be abstracted to something as simple in other games as "roll for initiative". Realms of Peril and Glory did a short AGON campaign a while ago, and it very much centred on the actual relationships, names, and bonds of the three characters, to the point where even listening to it being played felt both mythical and deeply personal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
I think the point here is not the quality of there being books that are more on refining the practice of running games, it's that there are so few and they only address what are perceived issues at tables. Specialized terminology that is featured in more games is becoming more commonplace as well, which I believe is something that started with games such as Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark (as well as their core engines of PBTA and FITD). Going so far as to reinforce through that language that tabletop games are conversations for those types of experiences is an important social experience distinction - elements from those games go on to influence this latest group of games that people seem to have the most exposure to. This was brought up in the OSR thread, but the replays for Record of Lodoss War got a translation to English. They provide some interesting insights because even though that was from the era which prioritized more of a sandbox type of play, there was a clear narrative (even before the later media came out which reorganized character backstories and development to be more consistent) and players and referee both understood that their way of playing was "tough, but fair". Similarly, they also recognized as a group that there was a story to be had, particularly when encountering NPCs. Since we've been in philosophical territory a bit I will describe in greater detail the how and why of onboarding all new players to the current game I started running, and how I intend to do so for the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:Specialized terminology that is featured in more games is becoming more commonplace as well, which I believe is something that started with games such as Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark (as well as their core engines of PBTA and FITD). Going so far as to reinforce through that language that tabletop games are conversations for those types of experiences is an important social experience distinction - elements from those games go on to influence this latest group of games that people seem to have the most exposure to. Terminology's actually an interesting point, I deeply loathe when a game decides to rename a well-established term simply for thematic reasons, rather than keeping it as the conventional term for readability. That's something I always find as a pointless stumbling block for understanding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Terminology's actually an interesting point, I deeply loathe when a game decides to rename a well-established term simply for thematic reasons, rather than keeping it as the conventional term for readability. That's something I always find as a pointless stumbling block for understanding. You mean you didn’t like the 90s trend of invoking your yellow motes against a pain and talent hostile without finding a null? Did anyone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Going back a few posts but I am seeing a couple of threads I'd like to tie together:
These are not, actually, ideas in conflict with each other. In the second case, it is good to have an understanding of the first aspect, because that will help you to identify and analyze and ultimately treat problems you're having at the table. "Why did today's session seem so disjointed and weird?" The answer might be because Leigh wasn't paying attention, but it also might be because we tried to collapse a mine and the GM felt overwhelmed and didn't have any rules to fall back on. Rules provide players with supporting structures to rely on; when they're good, they create interesting choices to make. They can teach us how to play, or how to think about structured play. They can be ideas engines. In the first case, it is good to have an understanding of the second aspect, because that will help you to avoid the trap of constraining your imagination and experiences and play to only what the author both anticipated and codified. "Why didn't we even think of trying to collapse the mine?" The answer might be because there were no rules for Supports and Superstructures, so it didn't occur to us, and that may or may not be a problem specifically... but if we never think outside the box the rulebook created, we might find ourselves ultimately dissatisfied. Roleplaying has always been a creative endeavor and we might not even consciously notice that we're staring at our sheet and only picking things to do based on what's written there. If we can stay conscious of the fact that the written artifact of "the game" is just a starting point, a place from which to lift off, we may have more of what Fax calls Wonder, Create, and Explore. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
There's this common assumption that having rules prevents people thinking outside the box, and I just don't necessarily think that's the case. I think that if people learn not to think outside the box in RPGs, it's because of the pressures of social contract, that is a) not turning a combat encounter that could involve all players into one player having an idea; b) not turning a combat encounter that could provide a half-hour or so of engaging play into a two minute statement; c) not potentially causing the GM to write off their work mapping the mine; d) not potentially causing the other players to write off their work and engagement optimising their characters; e) not potentially pointing out a flaw or abstraction in the GM's preparation. Now I know you can argue that the first four can be avoided, because the GM can just move the combat or the map elsewhere, but if they do that then there's been no game benefit to collapsing the mine. Like, you're still going to have the same fight or explore the same map with the same dangers, but now it will be more awkwardly integrated into the story, so what did you gain other than making the plot worse? Detail's also an issue. Like, consider a video game like Teardown where you're supposed to collapse structures. You don't just say "I knock down the structure", you have to get to the supports, and you have to have sufficient force to collapse them, and you have to work out where you're going to position yourself to not be crushed in the collapse.. all could be engaging, but without mechanical support not really well defined. hyphz fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
I don't think I've seen any of a through e at a game table before, at least not out loud like that's a thing we might talk about later, but not in play "not thinking outside the box" at my tables has normally been things like "which of the skills I have on this list applies here" or "my best thing is power attack, so I guess I power attack" or "here is the big bad evil guy, naturally we roll initiative now". e. detail is an issue I agree, and that's another thing where players and referees have to kind of find the right feel for "giving extraneous detail that sets the scene" where players don't either obsess over details that don't matter or ignore details that do. But detail can lead to creative gameplay, a 10x10 room that is "empty" might be identical to one that is empty on your map but you describe as having vines stuck to the walls, dripping water in one corner, and a pungent smell of mouldering earth... but the latter might lead to someone getting creative later when they need some vines, want to get something wet, or want to commune with nature. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Well, okay. Let's say you want a game about players collapsing mines on orcs. Let's call it Supports & Superstructure. You'd probably want some rules for how long it takes down to bring down certain kinds of infrastructure, some outright rules or at least guidelines for what can go wrong, prices for the equipment needed, for hirelings you might want to bring along, the effect of violated OSHA regulations on hireling morale vs how much faster it makes the job go. If people were playing Supports & Superstructure, and instead went: "Actually we just want to go in there and hit the orcs in the head with their pickaxes instead," something the system has no rules for, and which the GM would have to invent from whole cloth or just adjudicate on the fly... then I would say: Why are we collapsing a mine in the first place? It seems like this game is about killing orcs. To quote Sam Jackson in Hateful 8: " I joined the war to kill white Southern crackers. And that means killing 'em in any way I can! Shoot 'em, stab 'em, drown 'em, burn 'em, throw a big 'ol rock on their heads!" I understand what you're getting at. I don't know if you actually DM games. I'd say the scenario you are coming up with isn't too outlandish and most DM's ultimately have to come up with something for a similar situation. The solution is to either: - Have rules that exhaustively cover every possible interaction. It is doomed to failure. - Come up with some best practices and tell the DM to do their best to make a ruling. Everyone will probably have fun. I am not a mine foreman. But I'd say this pretty mundane scenario you're producing is already decently covered in the rules already. The system we use has an Architecture skill. I'd probably tell the players that a successful role on such a skill would mean their character is knowledgeable about this stuff (not too outlandish in a game about Dwarves). I'd then identify some weak points in the mine in which the players would have to gently caress with it, with an increasing chance of mine collapse for each one they hit. I'd probably give them odds openly on the table (sure, the mine could collapse on your head!) so they could strategize, because the players are having fun coming up with a plan and what do I loving care if they collapse a mine on some orc's heads? You're acting as if the rules are helpless in the face of this outlandish scenario when this stuff happens all the time and the rules are designed to be basic and flexible and "have the DM come up with stuff" is the default mode of thinking. It's a feature, not a bug, because the game would suck if it had detailed Mine Collapse Rules in addition to every other possible scenario because no one wants to waste the table's time paging through for all of that. The rules have plenty of literal examples for sword-fighting because it is a relatively common element and it is almost guaranteed to come up, like sleeping, casting a spell, etc. In our game this 'problem' would be resolved in a few minutes and we'd simply move on. If they needed to get anything out of the mine, well, they failed, and we'll move onto the consequences. If they just wanted to kill orcs for someone who theoretically owned the mine, well, they failed, the mine is wrecked. If they just wanted to murder orcs, wow, nice job, we move on. Let's go smaller. You won't let the players collapse a mine. There's no rule for it! It'd be ridiculous! Your players roll their eyes and move on. They're home alone in their castle and some more orcs are coming tonight! The player, sheepishly, asks you if they could sabotage the old wooden staircase such that it collapsed if more than one person, or a heavy guy, walked on it. BUT there's no rules for that? How could it happen? I have never constructed nor rigged a staircase to collapse! Is this another thing you'd just tell them "Sorry guys, we're here to STAB the orcs. Nowhere does it say you could kill them with a collapsing staircase in these rules. We're not playing Stairs & Sabotage here!" I understand many people would be absolutely uncomfortable coming up with some improv ruling on the spot. DMing is a skill and it takes experience to do it well. I know I sucked in the beginning and would have been flabbergasted if I had spent hours mapping a mine and the players just wanted to stuff the entrance with gunpowder and blow it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:I understand many people would be absolutely uncomfortable coming up with some improv ruling on the spot. DMing is a skill and it takes experience to do it well. I know I sucked in the beginning and would have been flabbergasted if I had spent hours mapping a mine and the players just wanted to stuff the entrance with gunpowder and blow it up. I feel like you're missing the point I've been trying to make, which is at no point critical of GM improvisation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think I've seen any of a through e at a game table before, at least not out loud Well, you won't, because it's a social contract thing not to mention it. Players tend to learn that knocking down the mine entrance so the orcs are trapped or charming the bad guy is in the same category as telling Mr Johnson to sod off because you don't trust him or not going to the Tomb of Horrors because so many adventurers died there. "Do not attempt to avoid game content" is a quickly learned rule. And if that limits your options, so be it: to complain about that would violate the Plutonium Rule. The alternative, that "game content cannot be avoided" (so that if you knock down the mine entrance then there's a secondary ork burrow elsewhere with the layout the mine would have had and magically reinforced shoring) can be fun as well, but it's a tradeoff that players might not want to make. And, as I mentioned above, it quickly mutates into "do not attempt to avoid game content" anyway, because if it can't be avoided, why bother trying? The only time I've seen it work well is in the PbtA games I played where the game content is so flexible that fudges like reusing layouts are never needed. In that case, you can't avoid game content but you can redefine it, so there's still a point experimenting. But not every game or every GM can do that, and again, the style has tradeoffs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Plutonium Rule, check I don't really know why people keep harping on this Mine Situation as emblematic of a system in which you're supposed to avoid combat entirely. The game isn't 'expecting' you to avoid the rules. The whole loving point of OSR style stuff is that you shouldn't go in with heavy expectations on what the player does. Present the fictional scenario, encourage the players to problem solve, try to come up with a ruling if it's not covered already. That's it! If you want a more basic example, I can put a fort full of 20 bandits on the map, and the players hear a rumor that the Mayor of Bandits has a cool magic sword. They want it. I don't present them with some sort of default solution here. The players coming up with something is part of the fun. - Maybe they try to collect enough coin to just buy it from the guy! - Maybe they try to infiltrate and join the bandit group. Now we're bandits! - Maybe they do the above, but really they're just trying to assassinate the guy! Now we're playing Hitman! - Maybe they gently caress off and don't care at all! - Maybe they charge straight through the door and blast away! That's likely to get them killed, so perhaps they should wait til they level up a few times, or hire some mercenaries to help them, or scout the place, or lure the bandits out into an ambush, or do any number of other things that make this hobby fun. It's fun because it is their idea and I'm letting them pursue the option they think is the most fun! Combat is cool! Combat is fun! It just doesn't have to be the default solution to everything, and collapsing a mine can be cool and fun too! No one is losing their fun when we spend 10 minutes collapsing a mine because maybe we'll get in a swordfight later. If you want a sword-fight, they're available! I play a game in which combat can be brutal and tough but I'm not shaking my head in disgust everytime they end up in a fight. I tell them that fights can be unfair and it's best for them to make it unfair in their favor. Have you played videogames? There are countless examples in which players are encouraged to find some clever way of making the fight unfair in their favor, or avoiding it entirely, but still have the ability to fight. This is not some either-or scenario. We can have a game in which fighting can be tough and also fun at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
DNE posted:A. Yeah, I mean, I agree, in everything from "the combat rules are fun and why we're there" (Lancer, Fabula Ultima, D&D4, TSL) to "the combat rules aren't necessarily the heart of the game, but an important tool in the toolbox" (WWN, FATE, and so on), the rules are there so that you can use them. I feel like everyone plays it entirely differently. I would be surprised to find that any table is playing some RPG straight from the book with no deviations. Every table kind of comes up with their own collaborative method, on the fly. The rulebook helps set the basic ideas, but I think every magic tea party is serving their own special brew. Jumping between groups playing the same game is always gonna feel very different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:I don't really want to play out cannibalism scenarios, so I wouldn't put my players into one, and I would shoot down if they asked if they could butcher a prisoner of theirs for rations. I mean it's all under the same umbrellla? I find the specific game mechanics talk to be nitpicky and boring and sorry for being part of the cause of it. But it is interesting to see where people draw the line on content in their games. Like, slaughtering dudes by the hundreds or thousands and chopping up their bodies is the default mode of thinking here in these games, but then putting one of those pieces into your mouth is verboten. I'm not telling you to put cannibalism in your game. I just think it is something interesting to think about when you really try and visualize what the room looks like after your Wizard used Acid Spray on a room full of thugs. A writhing mess of bodies clawing at the jellied remains of their eyeballs, choking on their own melting fluids. But don't eat em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I feel like you're missing the point I've been trying to make, which is at no point critical of GM improvisation. Is it a social contract thing? Like, PurpleXVI designed a really rad mine dungeon full of wonders, and it sucks that the players want to stuff the entrance with explosives. Now Purple's gotta awkwardly kludge together a ruling about that, and what's worse, throw away his rad dungeon and now it's 10 minutes later and there was no other plan beyond Raid The Mine? If so, I totally get it. In this kind of scenario the best thing would be just to straight out tell them and be honest. "Hey guys, all I have is the mine. How about we just play it?" Most people would be cool with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
One interesting thing I've noticed is that most RPG books have a perfunctory "What is a RPG" but very few games actually sit down and teach what playing the game looks like. And I mean the very basic things that are required to run a game out side of the actual rules like: "How do you form a play group?", "How do you pace a session?", and "How do you handle people missing sessions?" I'd bet that the 99.9% of groups that have started in the last ten years either had at least one person who had previously played an RPG or had watched significant amounts of Actual Play content, because a lot of this stuff just picked up instead of written down. Mr. Grapes! posted:Is it a social contract thing? My understanding is that the pont is more along the lines of: "If the players keep avoiding the mechanics of the game because fighting is very brutal and punishing, why not use a different game that supports the heist and subterfuge game that the group clearly wants to play instead?" There's something to be said for familiarity of course, but I also kind of scratch my head when OSR folks say how much fun it is to run clever cons and heists in a game system that doesn't seem to do much to support them. The games they describe do sound fun! But I don't really see what the DND-likes add to the game. Capfalcon fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
I feel going to design pillars from a rules standpoint might actually be beyond the scope of this thread. Most people seem overly concerned with one or two rules engines rather than the broader topics of learning and playing tabletop RPGs. I mentioned earlier that I have onboarded players at a pretty regular clip to a wide variety of games of varying complexity levels. These players come from all different groups and experience levels, and also of a large variety of expectations. Some groups fare better than others, but in the current day I only have one game that I’m running. For most people, learning how to play in the “old school D&D” tradition carries with it a lot of baggage in some way. It’s my responsibility as the referee of such a game to help set the tone of play before players get to the table. I decided that I would provide a video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXU4IFLfikg This is something that could be provided to players. Of note is that this doesn’t talk about rules or character creation that much - this helps to prime people for play. The rules themselves don’t matter as much for new players onboarding - putting myself in that position, I want to get to the actual gameplay right away rather than worry too much about making an optimized character. Of course, I can re-shoot and edit this video to provide better visuals and more coherent flow and all that good stuff, but this was created in an effort to provide some wonder to the game itself. Call it the “pitch”. As players get to the table, it’s important for me to find out what their play experience is like. Often, they will not have had experience with the rules engine that we’re using, and that’s totally okay. As Jason Alexander writes in his manifesto on open table gaming, the point is to keep the barrier to entry low. We roll stats and money, and for some players who have no concept of the basic classes, equipment lists, and so on I eschewed them in favor of a streamlined character class for play, “the Stranger” - a nod to the otherworld travelers featured in the throwback dungeon crawling game Stranger of Sword City. This is a character that starts with a weird weapon of choice, the clothes on their back, and their starting money as if they were a Discworld-type tourist. Thus, I can engineer the structure at the table for rapid exploration of the game and the narrative constructs therein. Play begins in approximately 5 minutes, a handful of index cards, pencils, and some dice. In the future I will restrict rulebooks and electronics at the table as part of an exercise not just for players, but also for myself to reinforce that the rules are important to remain consistent, but should not be required to maintain the game conversation at the table. Of course, everybody should be encouraged to create resources that help them for the game - this can be done with the aid of the books away from the table or during breaks from the game conversation, but everything must be ready to go and distractions minimized. Through these kinds of restrictions, there will be a necessary need to innovate, and also to focus on the acts of creating things. I will, of course, remember to do things like print out equipment sheets, give suggestions for equipment loadouts, common reference to things like wilderness and dungeon exploration, and have the world map handy for access as well, all things players should have. These meet my three personal criteria for play as a guide for onboarding new players. It provides rapid entry to play that can then be expanded on later so that people can contribute to the living documents and the lore generated at the table. It also reduces the amount of clutter that I need to bring along with me, so I can bring things like spare dice, premade characters, and so on that people can use right away. For me, learning how to run any game also means learning different modes of play. My idea of fun is to have people engaged in increasingly ridiculous situations at the table, rather than sitting there in tense silence as enemy and player maneuvers hex by hex to fulfill some clandestine objectives (I find that fun as well, but the games I engineer now are not that). When I’m not at the table, I will think about the game - the brain always has space and bandwidth to wonder, in my case, and I take what my observations and learnings are from completely unrelated things and funnel that into the game in some way for players to explore later. Whereas some people will make an argument that play only happens at the table with the group, I come from a different tradition where you’re playing and thinking about games every chance you get. Those things happen away from the table in fits and spurts, alone or with others, and creating things away from the table also is just as valid as the type of play that is had at the table. That there are rules to handle some of those things might be worthwhile endeavors, but if it exceeds a “gently caress this” threshold for me I will usually find a more streamlined solution. Where is that threshold set? Depends on my time, energy, and inclination, but I will keep it consistent until it’s time to revisit that. I’ve had players who struggle with ADHD say that this method of play also encourages them to remove distractions and enjoy the experience of play far more as well. Of course, there may be concessions for accessibility purposes in the future, but people are open to attempting a different activity and style of play that they may be used to, and learning how to provide those contexts and situations for play ultimately make for a pleasant time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:
So, I think people get confused about this. In 5e, and its like, the Cool Part about fighting is looking down at your menu and choosing something, right? Every single class gets a load of spells, or 'spells' which are just special abilities that they can trigger like the Barbarian Rage 'Spell' and the Ranger 'Special Mark That Guy Spell". Players spend a lot of time optimizing their builds and preparing to execute their combat play. The DM is expected to put monsters in front of them that they can use their abilities on to smack them around. It is generally expected that you run into an arena, the wrestling music plays, everyone rolls initiative, game on! The DM made a special battle map for this room. You better not leave! The fighting is like a JRPG. The OSR type of games do have combat, and combat is fun! But, they usually do not have character sheets full of special abilities. Sure, they have them, and there are spells, but that stuff is generally rarer, less directly applicable to combat, you get the idea. So, how do players have fun choosing special abilities? They do it by interacting with the game world. The game system encourages the players to engage directly with the fiction and come up with solutions to the problems using this. For example, I had a dungeon with basically just one big monster in it. The players started out unarmed and naked! If they just rolled initiative and went fists a flying they would have got eaten up. Instead, they would run away from it, bar the door, go exploring, and find cool things that they could use. They stumbled into some traps. They met some weird ghouls. They found all sorts of other random junk that appears like set dressing to a 5e player but are lethal MacGuyver weapons to my OSR players. The monster was always after them. They killed it! How? -They almost got eaten by the ghouls, but they fed their dead friend to them, and then told them they could work together and the ghouls could eat the entire monster. More meat! Rarer meat! They appealed to what the ghouls really wanted (MEAT). The ghouls helpfully told them how to open some special door that was trapped. Opening it incorrectly would result in acid spraying out. Hmmm... The players lured the Monster to the door, and opened it 'wrong', spraying the fucker with acid! Ouch! Its still not dead! They trap it in the room, buying themselves time as it bashes the door to get out, burning with acid. As it finally bursts through, it slithers right on top of the pile of chopped wood that they soaked with lamp oil! Two other guys on the side toss an oil-soaked fur on top of it. Quick, chuck the torch! Now it's on fire! The player makes a daring leap over a bearskin fur that's stretched out on the floor. The monster crawls after him, it's really pissed! Oh, gently caress, that fur was stretched over a pit that one of their number fell into earlier. The monster falls into the spiked pit! It's burnt, it's on fire, it's fallen, it's impaled. It's still alive! The players surround the pit and chuck bits of statue, cooking pots, and all other manner of bric a brac at it until it is loving dead. The ghouls happily climb down in the pit to feast on the now-roasted monster, thrilled with their meal. When they finally climb out of the pit with assistance by the players, they are so engorged that they can barely move. The players snatch the ghouls' weapons and stab those fuckers to death. Can you see how this was combat? The players did lots of cool things in combat, but if they had just rolled initiative and traded blows they would have lost. They would have lost to both the monster and the ghouls, but now they were victorious because they used their environment and brains to their advantage to make it an unfair fight. Now armed up, if these players run into some opposition and feel like they have the advantage, they might have a straight up fight. Or, they might figure out some other way to gain some even greater advantage... Did you ever see Jaws? They killed the shark! It was awesome! But, if this was an Aquaman movie, he probably could have just stood his ground and punched Jaws to death, or grabbed him by the tail and swung it into a rock. Instead Roy Schneider and pals had to improvise using a bunch of poo poo on their boat. If you take "Combat is tough and you could die!" as something that means "Avoid combat at all costs!" then that's on you. There are lots of cool games out there where you fight things by being creative or smart about it. There are lots of cool games where you fight things by saying BRING IT ON and just ripping and tearing. I like DOOM. I also like Deus Ex. If you're genuinely curious, the Dungeon I used for this scenario is right here. It is specifically designed to teach people how to play an OSR style game. If you're at all interested, try it as a one shot horror scenario, as everyone starts out as Level 0 peasants with no equipment so they are forced to approach the game in a different way and use their wits to win. https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2020/04/lair-of-lamb-final.html I am not trying to convert people into some OSR religion here. I merely bring it up because many people have specifically in this thread complained about games being kind of stale because they are too combat focused or players don't think creatively, and I'm just trying to toss some resources or ideas that could be solutions to those complaints. There is also a lot of discussion over how people specifically learn how to play these games, and I think the link above is a good way to learn how to play these games in a different way than many people are used to. Mr. Grapes! fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
The trick with this is that every step of it involves some degree of implicit cooperation. For example, there is a list of things that the ghouls can tell you, and the door at 8 isn’t one of them. The door at 33 is. Mr. Grapes! posted:The players lured the Monster to the door, and opened it 'wrong', spraying the fucker with acid! Ouch! Its still not dead! Indeed not as based on the adventure you posted, it is immune to acid. The PCs would likely have also been sprayed. quote:They trap it in the room, buying themselves time as it bashes the door to get out There is no door leading to 6 other than the one to 7, which is noted as “impossible to force”. quote:burning with acid. And ignoring it. quote:Now it's on fire! Which should make it scared, per its Phobia rather than having it chase a player. As it is perfectly aware of a water source in the area, and actually bathes in it, it should know where to run. quote:The player makes a daring leap over a bearskin fur that's stretched out on the floor. There is no bearskin rug in the adventure, nor a bear to make one from. quote:Oh, gently caress, that fur was stretched over a pit that one of their number fell into earlier. The monster falls into the spiked pit! There is only one pit on the level. It is at 8, is not spiked, and is where the Lamb sleeps. It probably should know where it is. quote:but now they were victorious because they used their environment and brains to their advantage to make it an unfair fight. No, they didn’t. They proposed or did things you thought were cool, and you altered the environment to fit them. As a GM of course you are fully within your rights to do this. But it means that it is not a game of gritty combat tactics any more. Combat is only lethal in that you might have hypothetically had them killed by the Lamb if they did something that is obviously wrong, which is what a lot of games of this type comes down to. Let me be absolutely clear that I do not think you ran the game “wrongly”. But at the same time, it was not in fact based on exploitation of a fixed environment, and PC death may have been (I don’t know) largely hypothetical. It was not OSR, it was Feng Shui. And Feng Shui is a great game, but saying it’s OSR isn’t correct. “Gritty but not really” is one of the most common misrepresentations of play, but I cannot know if you actually fell into it. hyphz fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
hyphz posted:
This is pretty nitpicky! I ran the adventure itself more than 3 years ago when it was in the "Beta Test" phase, so much of it was a lot different than it exists in the final form. I didn't really like the map, because at that time it was unclear, so I drew my own map which used a lot of the same elements because it seemed clunky and mislabelled as written. The creator obviously agreed, because looking at it now it has gone through a lot of changes. hyphz posted:
So, that is precisely my point about how to run a game. Even if there is a list of things the "Ghouls know", I am a reasonable person and I do not think the Ghouls only know X things. I treat that as things the Ghouls definitely know but if they go off-script, which is totally fine and expected, I will improv and run the conversation, rather than reacting like an NPC in a videogame who has exhausted all their dialogue options. They asked about a door combo, and I called it 50/50 the ghoul would know, and wow, turns out he knew, so he asked for an extra favor in exchange for the info. The players did get in the room, and one of them interacted with an object in there that made her grow a crab claw. I played it as the Ghoul knowing about that whole hosed-up-thing, so he wanted people to get in there, because he doesn't get to taste crab very often and a human with a crab claw adds some variety to his meaty diet. Did the Ghoul as written have a taste for crab claws? No? Who cares? The best NPCs take on a life of their own once you play them, and you never know what the players are gonna say. hyphz posted:There is no bearskin rug in the adventure, nor a bear to make one from. Is this a real nitpick you're going to make? In Room 14, there are "8 soft rugs". My players loot these rugs to get makeshift clothes. One of them asks "Is it a bearskin rug? That would look cool." I say yes, because why the gently caress not? He can wear a bearskin rug. Who cares? It doesn't tell me what the rugs are specifically made of so if the player has an idea that makes sense, I'll take it. Are you the type to say no? I added a pit with some starved goblins somewhere because I wanted to have some clues that would lead to another adventure in the wider campaign world that focused on some Goblin Stuff. The players sharpened some of the dead goblin bones on the rocks to make 'spikes'. One of the goblin-corpses had a map tattooed on his scalp which is what I was hoping they would find. hyphz posted:No, they didn’t. They proposed or did things you thought were cool, and you altered the environment to fit them. As a GM of course you are fully within your rights to do this. But it means that it is not a game of gritty combat tactics any more. Combat is only lethal in that you might have hypothetically had them killed by the Lamb if they did something that is obviously wrong, which is what a lot of games of this type comes down to. It is altogether strange that you are focusing on details of a dungeon that I modified myself before the players even arrived. I don't use any module as written and always tweak them. Sometimes I'll jam two dungeons together and make my own Frankenstein creation. This one needed to be a one-shot that we could get through in one or two sessions so I ripped what I wanted from it and mixed it with my own ideas. This is pretty normal, dude. I don't really understand what is "hypothetical" about the PC deaths? You're very willing to ignore the crux of the post, which is showing how an OSR combat can go, to pixel-bitch about me running an adventure as written. If your takeaway of me showing that in an OSR combat you can use makeshift weapons, lure enemies into environmental hazards, make allies, and do other cool stuff, is that "ACTUALLY the rug couldn't be a BEAR" then you're being willfully obtuse. I posted the link because I think it is a cool adventure that has good training text for how to run an OSR game. I myself used the module as a one-shot introduction to an entirely new campaign setting, so I made my own map to have it fit into my campaign world, but kept a lot of the elements that were there. I didn't go into all of these details in the post because I was trying to illustrate an example of OSR combat, and not to provide a play-by-play of a dungeon that exists in some tattered notebook covered in cheeto stains. Mr. Grapes! fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Not really. If the Lamb was not immune to acid as written in the adventure you ran/modified, then I accept my interpretation was incorrect. But if the Lamb was originally immune to acid, and when the players decided to bait the Lamb into the acid trap you ruled that it was not in order to reward the players for the idea, then that isn’t winning by exploiting the environment as it exists, it’s winning by having ideas you like. It’s not bad, in fact it’s pretty cool, but it’s not what it was claimed to be. In practice “gritty and realistic” combat tends to quell creativity rather than encourage it because of the inherent risks. “We shouldn’t lure the monster into the acid trap because for all we know acid heals it” is a good example of how.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 07:14
|
|