|
Thelonious Funk posted:How do you guys feel (as players) of fights with gimmicks? As an example, say you're fighting a Golem. Ever so often he uses a huge beam (or something, it's an example shut up), and for a turn after that, he takes increased damage (otherwise taking normal damage.) I'm personally of a mixed mind on handling those things. Obviously a gimmick is a great way to get the players to solve a puzzle instead of conducting an otherwise generic fight. It can make a particular conflict much more memorable, and nothing is more pleasing to a GM than having his players talk about an event months after it was played out. However I've played a lot of games that have seen this screwed up incredibly badly. From "subtle tell that the enemy is now suddenly vulnerable" to "boss will randomly die by circumstance/kill himself after a set period of time". I see a lot of GMs try to pretend they're clever by introducing a tricky fight only to make it frustrating and tedious. The obvious problems are pretty straightforward. Certain players may be negated because their character/playstyle is unsuited for the situation. While it's okay to have some characters be less useful than others in a given fight, balancing it on a supposedly big deal fight is a good way to make one of your buddies sit back and twiddle his thumbs and wonder what he did to make you hate him so much. The other issue is how obvious the gimmick is. A good puzzle should be both challenging but not disastrous if avoided or ignored. In my experience, I've had the best luck in these situations by going with the feel of the fight, though I'm probably alone on this. The more into the fight, the situation, and the idea of a showy/dramatic event the players are, the more they will be receptive to lateral thinking in a fight and the more they will be willing to explore new options for handling it. If the players feel capable, they will go after an encounter with the assumption that it has a clear-cut solution. If it's at the climax of an extremely fast-paced, action-heavy game with lots of success for the players, a good gimmick fight will make them feel like they're being challenged appropriately. Ultimately the purpose of this kind of tactic is to make the players feel like they're downing something beyond their ability, and through the use of their own ingenuity. Seconding White Dragon on this one: Don't rely on mechanics to introduce this element. Players, in my experience, are engaged in the storyteller's presentation. They latch onto key words, descriptions, and associations, and rarely concern themselves with mechanics especially if they don't normally use them. Stuff like dealing with terrain, props, location relative to, or plot-relevant information is a good way to go about it. Sometimes, even going by dramatic appropriateness can work. I've had a player pick up on my off-hand description of an armored helicopter touching down on the ground, and respond by running up to it (dodging the propellers) to latch on and toss a grenade in. It turned what could've been a drawn out conflict into a climactic finale to an excellent game (Shadowrun 3rd, if you're wondering). Sometimes even just set up unique situations for the conflict which aren't the generic "guy in open room, 40ftx40ft" and brainstorm ways the players could exploit it. If they're in the mood for it, they will. They want to have fun too, after all. And the golden rule of building conflicts is: If it goes badly, or you're afraid it might go badly, just drop the idea for now. Nothing is worse than a GM frustratingly trying to force his players to do one thing. The more the players take the initiative on it, the better. Rigid puzzle bosses are not really suited to a collaborative game.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
veekie posted:Depends heavily on the group. There are groups(especially D&D based ones), who would want to know how that works at all, if you say its magic, what spell, etc. Not all that common, and not always extreme, but they are there. Even so, I would consider it a design flaw if that information is strictly necessary or crucial to the player's decision making unless that's entirely the kind of game your group is interested in running, in which case you probably should be concerned less with dramatic puzzle bosses or unique combat situations, and more about tweaked builds. Even so, you cant genuinely call it a puzzle boss if it relies on divining archaic rule sets to beat it. If players insist to know these sort of things, there's nothing wrong with divulging it. If the player has to consult one or more rulebooks to find a counter-intuitive way to get around it, then you probably designed the situation too rigidly. Honestly it's up to each individual GM to decide how best to approach designing a puzzle fight, though I'm suggesting that the looser and faster a group plays with the rules, the more inviting the concept is to execute, and the more willing players will be to participate in solving it. If anything, this is one of the best places to "GM on the fly" as it were, as players may diverge radically from your expectations (for the better, or for the embarrassingly worse), and being able to keep the situation suitable for the action or drama will keep it from blowing up in your face.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Yeah, essentially. The more elaborate a GM wants to be, the more essential it is that he has an out in case it goes south. Even if it's as simple as dropping the idea entirely. Nothing sucks worse than a GM with all the generosity and give of a brick wall, especially when he expects the players to be creative. A little give and take is all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 08:15
|
|