|
I'd suggest going with something simple for your first outing. Definitely ask them what sorts of things they're interested in, like Bass Concert Hall suggested. If they just want to kick rear end and take names, shoving a bunch of skill tests (or puzzles that the players have to solve) at them will just be an annoyance. If you want certain encounters to take place, design them loosely and simply. That way you can drop them in and flesh the details out on the fly. A damsel in distress, menaced by five kobolds, could be up a tree in a rural environment, trapped in a dungeon cell, or down a dank alleyway. Don't expect to use all of your set-piece encounters unless you're doing a straight-up dungeon crawl with no meaningful side passages. CR is a pretty decent scale at low levels, but it starts to show wear in the teens. It's worse when you've got people experimenting with multiclasses and prestige class mixing, but by that point you should have a decent grasp of their strengths and weaknesses.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
In my opinion, designing the 'what' and filling the 'where' in on the fly would be easier. It's good practice for thinking on your feet, for when your players inevitably decide to dash off on a tangent, and helps the players to feel that they aren't being railroaded. They rabbit off in an unanticipated direction, but still end up getting the encounters/treasure/information that you want to give them. A straight-up dungeon crawl is a somewhat different matter. You have stricter control of the environment than in an urban or overland scenario, so the PCs are less likely to run off to the nearest tavern or toward the coast instead of the mountains. Your 'Schroedinger's Dungeon' sounds like how a lot of basic crawls work out: each room is an encounter unto itself, with monster positions pre-placed and no communication between rooms to confuse things. In that kind of a situation, you'll have an easier time relying on the PCs' greed or completionism to scour the whole map for everything you've set out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 22:15
|
|
|
It sounds like you've got a great philosophy going in, which is fantastic. I would still suggest making things simple at first, until you're sure of yourself behind the GM screen. With the fine line between life and death at low levels, they're not the best place for experimentation. Environmental props? Sure, toss 'em in. Mention them when you describe the PCs opening up a door, or just run with it if one of the players asks if there's a chandelier in the room. Mention that you're trying to encourage unusual tactics and thinking outside of the box, but don't force them into it. If they want to rush in with swords flashing, let 'em. You can always have one of the bad guys knock a brazier over onto a highly flammable rug...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 04:31
|
|
|
I say go for it. Half the fun of a new system with over-elaborate rules is strategically ignoring limits and getting the most hilariously stupid stuff out of your players' systems, or at least out on the table where you can give it a thorough eyeballing before trying again. Or, you know, leaping back into the fray and continuing where you left off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Cis-vital and trans-migrated. A game I was in a while ago had a necromancer in the party. He was more focused on spells that manipulated life force than on raising the dead, but the GM wanted some way to bring traditional elements of the school into play without necessarily being all evil and gross. I suggested geocaching. Lo and behold, next session we were introduced to Chilly Bob the necromancer, and through him, undead geocaching. You'd animate something, cast a new spell on it to remove your control and put it into stasis, and swap it for something else in the crypt-cache.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 04:35
|
|