|
Sarx posted:Is there any chance of splitting the group in two and either DMing at two different times for the two different groups or finding one other DM. The disparity in age groups plus the two different playstyles pretty much mean you just have to do the best you can really. I definitely would suggest splitting the group. I typically WON'T DM for younger players without having considered it before hand ((This typically means I'm running a hack and slash campaign.)) I encourage roleplaying at that level, but most of the time, they either don't understand, or just don't care. And so it's bad to force it on them.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Best thread for this question. So, when it comes to 'Open World' and 'All Roads Lead Here' GMing, what do you guys think? I'm locked in a debate on another forum who keeps insisting players 'hate being railroaded into a plot they have no control over', when as I understand 'All Roads Lead Here' doesn't take choice away from players, but opens up choice without leaving the DM floundering to create encounters on the fly. JUst want to see what other people think of both game styles.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 05:45
|
|
|
My personal DMing style is, as I said 'All Roads LEad Here'. I have a lose idea of a plot. A major villian with a plan. An arcance convergence. A plague. Whatever. Then I set up some encounters attatched to said primary plot. Then I plant those encounters wherever the party happens to be when I feel the plot needs to be advanced. Players often don't ignore combat put in front of their face. It allows them to 'sandbox' with the world, without me needing to design a million extra encounters to keep them happy. I can RP characters on the fly. I can't stat them out on the fly, ya know? Of course, sufficent hooks mean they'll follow any railroad with pleasure, since they always thing they can get off at any time. >.> Until they learn about the 'phat lootz' at the next stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
The way I see it, the encounter doesn't even have to change. . . well. . . at all. . . to make this more fun from a player perspective. Before I'm lynchmobbed, I'll explain. Instead of masking it as 'Well, I'll fight him down for you, you finish him off' have the dragon make it clear that he CAN'T stop the Black dragon at all. But there is a ritual he knows of that the PCs can perform that can weaken him enough that they could destroy him. Then, if you want to include the Gold Dragon VS Black Dragon combat, the Gold Dragon is merely buying them a little time to perform the needed actions. Maybe throw in some attacks getting through, some reflex saves perhaps, with acid damage attached. This way, the PCs won't feel like they're playing second fiddle to a dragon, and may get a bigger rush thinking that the dragon is playing second fiddle to them. Also, if the gold is fending off the black for them, a good 'finish' may be to kill the NPC gold off as they are finishing the ritual. Depends on if you plan on keeping good ol' gold around for the long haul or not. I'd suggest against it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2009 08:25
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:Dragons have bigass treasure hordes. It's kind of their thing. A dragon that the party needs major assistance to defeat is also going to have a pile of treasure that is entirely inappropriate for the party. This encounter doesn't need to end up any where NEAR the dragon's lair. But yeah, in the lair, you've got a serious point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
even worse username posted:I don't want to restart the big XP The truth is, for me at least, XP is just a 'feel good' thing. I typically wing XP, and treat absent players characters like they're there in the background. If there's a TPK, they die too, any other situation, they were just there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 18:30
|
|
but I have a question for the GMs who award full XPs to characters with absent players - how is this rationalized in game, or do you bother? Are the characters assumed to have been present, and just in the background, or were they off doing their own thing that happened to net them the same amount of XP? In lots of games different players get different amounts of XP depending on their accomplishments, so how do you handle that for absent players? Do they just get an average award?
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Check parcels for that level. hand it out as a reward. If it's fourth, this is an excellent idea. If it's third, check the charts, calculate number andlevel of encounters, and make the value of the encounters the reward. Why do people say third is an easier system?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2009 14:47
|
|
|
newtestleper posted:I don't think I've heard anyone claim this, even the people that hate fourth! If someone hadn't used it on me, I wouldn't believe it. Somehow it's 'simplified for dummies' but 'too difficult too learn'. Was the most bizarre debate I've ever participated in. . .
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2009 20:58
|
|
|
Super Waffle posted:Thanks for all the advice you guys, its helped a lot I actually am considering throwing in the crushing ceiling trap in one of my games soon. Not as instant death, per say, but make it a skill challenge ((Haven't decided if death is the punishment for failure yet. . . Collapsing floor perhaps?)) Thought was primary skills would be Athletics, Endurance, Thievery. . . I'd like to figure out another one or two so no one is left out, but that's the basics. Make it as easy or difficult as you like.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 16:25
|
|
|
ripped0ff posted:Maybe go with the old "illusory trap" cop out. If they fail, are "crushed" by the ceiling only to discover it's illusory. The damage to their psyches is intense enough to knock off a few healing surges though. This also allows you to incorporate other skills into the challenge, like Arcana to give you clues to its illusory nature. But I like Holodeck episodes! But seriously, good idea for keeping the idea alive without ruining the game. And you can always keep the treasure room locked if they fail, so none of this 'arcana, I know it's fake, okay guys, no worries about the ceiling!'. Of course, I'm gonna say, if you pull this stunt once, and want to use the crushing ceiling again later, you better find a way to make it a threat, just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The problem I see with this idea is that the players are going to trade their weapons in for something better pretty early in the campaign unless you somehow "level up" their weapons for them. Hmmm. . . That's a neat concept, actually. Instead of item drops, make points where their 'weapons' power up in a suitably visible and cool fashion. . . Very gamey, but still would be neat for that type of game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 23:47
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:They might think something is off though if that happens. Might want to consider something they can carry on them that gives a very small buff, like a token or something that gives +1 to attack rolls once an encounter, or to defenses for a round once an encounter. Oh, for the original concept, you're right, I meant just for a neat 'epic' 'chosen of the gods' type game, the swelling weapon power could be a very good way to keep the chosen weapon from changing every few weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2009 00:01
|
|
|
I used a balanced goblin encounter on a party where one of the goblins was I think. . . +4 and another +3. . . It ended up a TPK. Part of me wants to blame the players (The ranger basically chased one goblin around the battle field and let the party deal with everyone else.) but the defenses on the higher level monsters was pretty tough to crack, especially when they were using cover.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 04:49
|
|
|
Option two wouldn't be bad if it were just a threat. Megacorp A built the mech, lost the mech, wants the mech back. Lay down threats of force, blackmail, everything they could possibly have to use against the party. If the party ignores it, that's their choice. Corp starts initiating their threats, sending special teams to deal with them, leaking information of their shadier activities to governments, telling their associated companies to stop selling to them. They still get the mech, but now you have a new antagonist, with virtually unlimited funds. Other ideas is have a government approach them ((I'm sure someone heard about this mech changing hands.)) and look to buy it. The cash would still monty haul the thing, but the power would spread out among each member of the party instead of a single massive mech.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
even worse username posted:Of course your players have to trust that you're not just going to screw them over for your own evil amusement but that's your goddamn problem. You're right, they need to trust you're going to screw them over for their own drat amusement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Souldark posted:I agree with Yawgmoth. Nah, that's not grognard, at least as far as I see. This situation literally sounds perfect as far as RPGs go: the players are invested in the shared reality, they are experiencing real emotions as a result of their own actions, you have not had to do anything mechanical to make the game unfun. I understand the fact that it killed the last bit of your game, but sometimes games end like that. Give them some time to recover, and see what they think about the campaign. Might be a good time to see how they intend to handle it, and help advance the game appropriately.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
Stuntman Mike posted:My characters are going to be faced with a "go to A or go to B" choice next time we play. A sage is going to point them either in the direction of rumored weirdness going down in a small coastal town (Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure from Dungeon), or towards the capital city in order to meet with an society of aberration-hunters to get more information about and help against the threat they've been fighting so far. Any chance the encounters dealing with the coastal town can be redesigned as a more inland ((Or maybe a river docktown?)) locale that you can plop between them and the capital to give you some breathing room?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
Stuntman Mike posted:The flavor of the adventure is really nautical and I'm using it mostly for said flavor, so that would be difficult. But I could put the people they're going to meet in a different city that puts them on the path towards the town anyway... so like you said, then the capital is a longer-term goal. Hmm I'll admit, I'm a big fan of 'all roads lead here' type of gaming. At least as a DM. It takes some practice, but when you get it right, you players don't even see the rails, since the only rails they are on are mechanical, and the story progresses by their choices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
rock rock posted:I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say the story progresses by your character's choices if whatever they do the same thing happens. I would have thought that would be a more accurate thing to say about a sandbox style game. How would you run something this way? Basically, I plan about 6 interesting combats, and drop the battles onto the appropriate set piece as needed. It's mostly about ad-hocking role playing and letting the players decide WHY they're doing whatever they're doing. The enemies can sem completely random or have story implications, whatever works at the moment. I just don't feel like planning twelve levels in advance and having it thrown off day one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:That was basically the germ of my "busted after a bar fight" idea. The only problem with that is they have to end up captured. I've got to hope they either give up willingly, or make their opponents so overwhelming that they have no choice. And even then they could always try to run away, or just fight to the death. My other option is to just force it and declare them "captured" after a fight with the bounty hunters. Either way I'm manhandling them with the story, they're not participating in it so much as being well, railroaded. If they run, you have a 'reason' for their bounty. Then you just spend a session or three extra having various groups hunting them down. You haven't planned this to level 30, have you?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
MrMortimer posted:Okay so I'm running my second campaign (my first one lasted maybe three sessions) and I'm just wondering, How do you come up with plot on the spot? I have a general story going on where the characters are developing an arch nemesis and then they'll be put in a situation to pursue and eventually defeat him and get lots of treasure. When I plan out for a session I typically write out a decent plot line to run through, but I hear all of you guys saying you do it on the spot. Any tips to be more fluid and less static? I usually plan a handful of set piece encounters, and then let the players decisions get them to those sets somehow. Might change the set occasionally, but the monsters are always gonna be what I planned the night before. Keep your treasure parcels prepped before hand as well and drop them where they seem appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 07:58
|
|
|
Chernori posted:Just prepare a couple batches of stats ahead of time and skin them appropriately when something happens. Pretty much this. The quick and dirty math is that the system is designed on a to hit roll of 10, the rogue should be hitting a bit more often. Some classes hit a little less, talk to the character op folks about that one. HP is a set scale based on role and level, check your DMG for that. And the enemies should hit on 10+ against your characters with middle of the road defenses, easier against the squishies, and harder against the guys with high defenses. It's basically learning to bullshit really well. EDIT: Also, attacks should do the standard damage expressions from the best page in the book or the back of the screen. lighttigersoul fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
MrMortimer posted:unfortunately I run a 3.5 game. I'm guessing DDI wouldn't help then? It's both easier and harder in 3.5. Most of the math I mentioned above works in 3.5, the difference is, now you have wizards who are just going to say 'gently caress that' and lay them down.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 04:57
|
|
|
Nicolae Carpathia posted:diabetes kills more people than vampires and it does it right in plain sight drat, embodiment of a terrible disease as the major villain. . . I want to find a way to run that game now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Whelp, TGD, I want your advice on if my idea is a terrible thing or if it will more likely be awesome. One of my players has asked to play a character with a 'broken soul'. I told him I'd actually make it figure into the game itself through an 'event', and that he could use it as pure flavor OR I could whip up some basic mechanics for it (Survival days and Arcane Defiling, is the idea.) his choice. But, that isn't the part I'm worried about. This 'event' is actually going to get him 'replaced' by the first major BBEG, but I would keep this information secret until the encounter with said BBEG. At that point, the BBEG reveals himself, and the players real character is reunited with the party, only to have to fight the BBEG and the beasty he's trying to wake up. I don't intend to gimp the character mechanically, and when he is found he'll be identical in every way to the fake character. Is this a stupid lovely idea, or is this reveal in the 'kosher' category? For the record, this is the BBEG's inspiration: http://www.mrocznyraj.pl/sklep/images/producenci/wh40k-Necron-Ctan-Deceiver.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Interstellar Owl posted:I'm feeling a lot of pressure to develop a fun game that can top/match the previous one. Don't try to top or match anyone. The false benchmark will create stress you don't need. As has been said before, talk to the players, a lot. Don't dismiss any ideas for the world they have out of hand. Follow their lead, they know what they'll find fun, you're just there to make sure it's not at the expense of everyone else. And enjoy yourself. DMs, that aren't total dicks, that are having fun are often infectious to the group.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 17:15
|
|