|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
For those of you with near exhaustive knowledge of FR, is there any relationship between Shar and Umberlee? Are they enemies, occassional allies? Have they ever, in any published source, shared the page, so to speak? If so, what was their relationship? If there's nothing published, what would you, based on "nearly exhaustive" knowledge of FR, suggest their relationship be if they were to share the page? -W. E. Ray
At the risk of being a bit presumptuous (a risk I always take) I'll share with you my observations and experiences with my favorite campaign of all time. Things from I6 to keep:
2) Madame Eva reading the PCs' fortunes that predict where, when & why for the adventure. 3) The mother in the village sobbing over her lost little girl who had been "shut-in" her whole life for protection. These are the best pre-castle moments of the game and make the castle-romp so much more engaging. The village of Barovia should come across just as the 2E material portrays it: people alive but not really living life because of fear. The biggest crime WotC made with EtCR is murdering the whole town and turning 'em into zombies. How pathetic. 1E vs 2E considerations
In 2E Strahd becomes so legendary that no one (outside of game) wants him defeated. Meanwhile, other evil NPCs take the stage around him. This gives you two choices on what kind of Ravenloft campaign you want to run. Do you want Strahd to be the BBEG that the PCs spend the adventure trying to get to and destroy (like I6) or do you want Strahd to be a powerful NPC that's in the background keeping his eyes on the PCs but not the main villain?? If this is the case you have to make another BBEG, equally evil (almost) as Strahd. The PCs will still meet Strahd; they'll still be afraid of him. He'll send gypsy spies to watch them, etc., but the campaign hooks and progression will revolve around some other evil force in Ravenloft -- you mention Acererak/ Azalin earlier. Anyway, you may want to think about it. -W. E. Ray
. . . At least this gives you a revenge. Yikes, this has been implied once or twice here but not quite stated yet. This is horrible. Since you're the DM you don't follow the same rules the PCs do. The instant you do anything for revenge or out of spite you become a piece of sh!t DM. You've got many good things to try and solve the problem with (without becoming a bad DM) before you have to ask the Player not to come back to the game. I quite often hear my players ask, why it is always them doing the hard work and the NPCs always stay back: I just tell them: you could share your XP and treasure and fame with these NPCs ...or you could start to act like the heroes you want to be Good stuff. -W. E. Ray
Take a tactical look at your Sorcerer who's planning to "Delay Action: Dispel Magic" vs the Warmage every round. He's gonna need someone to guard him while he's delaying. For a Scout to get his Skirmish he needs to move 10 feet. Give the mooks Combat Reflexes so they get their OAs. Of course, if your Scout has Mobility try to "shape the terrain" so that he can't move around alot. If you let us know what the BBEG is doing Vatnisse and Heath promise not to give, er, "suggestions" on how to make him better. If we know what he's taking care of we can better support him with mooks. -W. E. Ray
Maybe a Feat that gives you Faerie Fire 3/day or somethin'. But that's just because Faerie Fire always reminds of a moon-like glow, fitting for Desna. Any of the zero level spells like that would work. Desna's portfolio, other than butterflies and moonlight, is all about dreams. D&D dream-related stuff is generally too powerful for a Feat. However, you could make a Feat progression with a more Dream or sleep-like ability a few prerequisites in. I don't know if this is possible in WotC's new game or not. -W. E. Ray
I also think it's a player's responsibility to know what kind of campaign they're getting into. It's neat you bring this up. I had wanted to make another post on exactly this but felt maybe I was posting too much. I don't think it's the Player's responsibility at all. It's the DM's! Look at what you say here, The DM gives some info about what kind campaign it's going to be. DMs really should do this. Every time. So the Players have an idea of which character concept in their portfolio of PCs to bring to the game. There's nothing worse for a Player that makes a character concept that just don't fit in the campaign. But there's no way for the Player to know in advance unless the DM gives a little info. Thus it's the DM's responsibility. -W. E. Ray
Well, I and others have said it earlier in the Thread and implied it often but it seems worth repeating, All this depends on the level of DM/ Player trust. Pres Man's Players, for example, know when he's describing a fireball effect for flavor in the campaign. It doesn't occur to a Player who trusts his DM to ask "How can I make the fireball move people a few feet; what feat from CA does he have?" Spoiler:
(I only skimed over some of these recent posts; hope I'm getting Pres Man right as the example) The less DM/ Player trust a group has the more the group needs to have a Type A DM. And that's sad because Type B DMs are much more fun: The DM has the freedom to do Flavor stuff for the campaign without anxiety; the DM has the ability to throw out any rules-interpretation he feels doesn't work to make the group's gaming experience better. -W. E. Ray
I've had to deal with player characters like this before. A lot. Man, that sucks. I've had to deal with samurai who call the other player characters weak or stupid because they are not of noble birth. Just keep in mind that this, in and of itself -- or "by itself" is NOT wrong. What would make it wrong would be a Player who call's the other "Players" weak or stupid. The difference is important. During "A Paladin in Hell", a player caused a schism within the party, asking "Why should we save these people? We've got enough loot. Let's bolt." This is the one that's always okay to ask and always bad to go through with. It IS okay to make this rhetorical question. However, all the Players have to know what happens to the game if it's carried out. Think about that really stupid BS scene from The Return of the King where Samwise and Frodo are discussing all the legendary stories they "telled" when they were innocents at The Shire. Samwise asks why the heroes in those stories kept going, kept struggling through the pain? After all, it's easier to quit. But if they quit, if the PCs quit, the game ends. Just recently, I had to deal with a Pirates of the Caribbean-flavored bard who considered all those around him as tools to achieving his own glory and satisfaction, and would gladly conflict with every other player just because it is possible to do so. This can never be allowed. You gotta tell the Player to stop, create a new character or get the Fu<k out the game and stay gone. -W. E. Ray
Chaos-boy, in your longer response earlier you don't finish one of your thoughts; I'd really like to see the rest of it: I pretty much told him that if they don't want any meta game considerations to smooth gameplay . . . Then what?... 'Cause this is the key. They have to make a metagame concession of a campaign inconsistency for smooth gameplay -- hell, for any gameplay. Spoiler:
btw, you don't mind my calling you "Chaos-boy," right? 'Cuz of our so-much-wonderful discussions about alignments ;)
The second post, by Hogarth, is a great example of a metagame conversation that really helps a campaign. In that (very successful) case, the Players accept at the beginning that the campaign will be limited to the published material. It's okay to go a little against your PC's personality or motivations to keep the game alive. -W. E. Ray
Wow, tough situation. 1} You need to address the underlying issue here before catering to the specific situations in this particular campaign. Making the giants attack the elf forests or having an army from Magnimar frontal assault Jorgenfist or giving villagers more class levels is going to do NOTHING here until you and your group have a metagame discussion outside of the game about what kind of game you want to play, aka, "how do we get fun from our game?"
2} I'm sorry, but in a big sense the Player is right; he has a point. And even if he didn't you'd have to address his concern Of course, even though it's flawed the other Players see the same thing; there is an inconsistency in campaigns: Spoiler:
If it were as easy for NPCs to gain levels the way PCs do then there'd be a much larger number of higher level NPCs in the game world.... But as Players, DMs included here, we have to acknowledge for metagame purposes that this inconsistency makes "PC-life" impossible. Face it, if a handful of punk-ass, snot-nose chumps from the pathetic, stinking village of Diamond Lake could really walk a few miles into the Cairn Hills and come out not only with wealth upon wealth but also more levels than 99% of the village -- every punk-ass, snot-nose chump would be, like the PCs in AoW, 20th level in 18 months. But that doesn't matter; we dedicate 6 hours a week of our precious free time for this game. If we ain't havin' fun then wtf are we using our valuable time doin' this for?! This is gotta be the opening or ice-breaker for y'all's metagame conversation: "How do we want to have fun?" 3} If the Player wants to play an elf who hates humans every game then No DM has the right to tell him he can't. Just like if another Player had a thing for "Sturm-like" Paladins or trench coat wearing knee-cappers. If a Player loves to play a certain PC then he gets to play that PC EVERY game. The time when a DM has a responsibility to confront the Player is when the character concept ruins the fun for others. Which it sounds like is happening here. You Have to distinguish the differences here for this Player, though. In which traits/ actions is the PC alright to be his character and in which traits/ actions is he spoiling the fun? Laughing at and taunting the NPCs is okay -- always.
4} One of the things you need to let your Players know is that you run published adventures because you don't have the time to design your own. Emphasize this until they realize that y'all's campaigns can be limited in scope because of this. Sure, if you had 30 hours a week to tailor the campaign and each gaming session to the group it would be much better -- but who the fu<k has that much D&D time?! 5} Ultimately your Players should come away with the fact that they're playing in an imperfect game; they will find inconsistencies. While it's okay to challenge those inconsistencies (outside of game) and see if they can be fixed they must accept that sometimes they'll have to live with the inconsistencies just so that the game can continue! The Players are right about the "weaknesses" of the Sandpoint citizens. But can that be fixed ?? Rhetorically ask the Players if they'd like to have a game session where their characters sat and watched while an all NPC strike force dealt with Wolf's giants. Do they really want to play a game watching you describe how the NPCs do everything? Hope this helps, -W. E. Ray
The thing that made it so great is that it was, like, months later. NO ONE remembered that we had that thing; the whole campaign felt like a different campaign by then. When the Player said, Oh s$~@! I pull out that old "teleporting rug" and jump in the look on the DM's face was priceless. He had designed the whole next part of the campaign for us to be prisoners of that Necromancer -- not unlike the experience in the Slavers series. It was great. And the DM had to rewrite a bunch of material to get us back on track with the campaign; it was completely derailed -- of course we weren't going back to that Tamoachan city again!! -W. E. Ray
Bump Man I wish I had seen this Thread earlier. See, I have a similar story to Paul's. Back in 93-94 I was in a mostly dungeon-crawl game. I was a PC and we were almost TPK'd almost every fight, real ToH, MST kinda stuff. So, in one of the deepest levels we finally found the item we'd been hired to retrieve from the dungeon, a gem of somesort.
But if you step on (even touch) the rug you get teleported to a corridor a ways back that was a merciless PC killer. After torturous trial and error one of the other PCs used a 10ft pole or something to lift the rug up from underneath and let the gem roll off. Yay US! . . . And because we learned that the rug's bottom wouldn't teleport we rolled it up and took it with us. Well, we give the gem to the "Mysterious Seer" or whatever and get another job. The campaign goes on and on and on, Wemics and Rakshasas, and Dire Bears, Oh My. And we find ourselves, a few months later in some old Tamoachan-like ruins. Except they're empty and quiet... Too quiet. And, of course, hordes of undead begin to surround us, hordes. Then on the top of some fallen temple a BBEG Necromancer announces that we're his prisoners. We were toast and we knew it. After a moment of panicking, with the undead getting closer and closer, a PC pulls out the rug, opens it up and we all jump in, the last PC standing underneath making the rug fall on him so the bottom would be upside down for the undead!
1} Give "The Environment" a place or two in initiative. Plan ahead of time what environmental disasters you want to happen, and in what order. . . . So, when you're in the encounter and it's "the environment's" turn say, "All the sudden the ground beneth you erupts, yada, yada, yada." 2} Your grid map will be very important for this session. See, you want to light it on fire and burn it; the flames and smoke in your house will bother the other Players and create great table atmosphere. . . Since the PCs can't see too far, and because the terrain is huge, trying to get everything on a battlemat is going to ruin the experience. Counting squares and placing minis/ drawing areas where the Players can't see really slows down the game. Describe the overall stuff the PCs see and when they start using tactics: OAs and flanking, sneak attacks, etc., arbitrarily let them. If a PC says he wants to flank an NPC with another PC, let him. If the wizard says he wants to put his fireball at the best spot, he does. -W. E. Ray
Sounds like fun. Be careful on going too far with Acererak and Strahd. These are two of the three most famous NPCs in D&D history (with Eclevdra) and can easily overshadow the campaign -- the way an FR campaign revolving around Elminster and Szass Tam might: all the sudden the PCs are observers of the campaign. Taint: As you design the details of "what happens" just make sure these are far from meta-game details. Few things ruin Ravenloft more than game effects: "Everyone has a -2 on Will Saves," or "You start losing a point of CON and CHA each day." Bleh, Ravenloft becomes just another campaign. How unfortunate. Try to come up with "Flavorful" effects that still work in-game. I think the research you're doing will help give examples you can use or modify; let me add one to published suggestions: If a PC fails a Will Save for a curse or becomes insane or gets a phobia or whatever, make a few lists of hallucinations and emotional responses to give them for their character. For example, a PC is starting to go nuts, give that Player (NOT to share with others) a list of 12 (for example) hallucinations: he sees spiders crawling on another PC; he's convinced a PC has red "Satan" eyes; he's infested with body lice and mites, a circus clown keeps popping up behind the bushes and waving, etc. Then, during certain game-situations he has to roll a d12 to see which hallucination happens (maybe he gets a Will Save, maybe not). The key here is that, in addition to never being allowed to share the list with the other Players he can also not tell them what hallucination he's experiencing! He cannot say, "You guys don't see that clown over there?!" or "Oh my god, So-&-So, you're covered with spiders!" The Player has to roleplay the character in his condition. Smooth Sailing techniques: If you give the affected Player the list privately and ahead of time, the other Players won't even know it exists, what fun. During play when pitchfork wielding, torch-carrying peasants attack the PCs for practicing "witchcraft," have the affected PC roll a d12 -- the other Players have NO IDEA what's going on -- and after the roll you don't tell the affected Player anything (he can look at his list to see what's what). Then, when it's his turn in initiative and he starts crying and maybe attacks one of the PCs (non-lethal force) then the encounter becomes a great Ravenloft-worthy encounter... In that first sentence I said "ahead of time"; the more "ahead of time" the Player gets the list the more time he has to think about HOW he will roleplay the situation -- he won't have a brain-fart for how to portray his PC. -W. E. Ray
I use it when it makes good campaign sense AND as a tool to evoke strong emotions in my Players. I've used all the things Lilith mentions in her post but only at times where it seemed like a good adventure-design tool to enhance the gaming experience. And, obviously, you only do what will not make folks uncomfortable. -W. E. Ray
Pres Man, I think I agree with all the points you make save one: "The rules, I always thought, were meant to be a way to simulate a heroic story." Here, I disagree. I think a rules-system, ANY rules-system, can do nothing except get in the way of a "heroic story simulation." If we were writing stories instead of campaigns we would just write down whether or not the good guy hits with his sword or gets passed spell resistance or successfully turns the mummy. And in the end the story would be "heroic." And we cannot do that in a game -- so we have rules: roll a d20 to see if you hit or penetrate SR or turn the mummy. The trick in designing a rules-system is finding one that is the least restrictive yet still fair and the most realistic yet still playable (no rules on how long it takes to pull up your britches after urinating in the bushes). -W. E. Ray
I am a bit old school here. If the rules get in the way of a description, or something I think is likely to occur in game terms, I toss the rules. I sometimes tell a player that he can make an extra attack, Do non-standard things with monsters. Make judgement calls about an environment, and hand out modifiers for things the books never dream of. I grew up on AD&D, where the DM is like unto a god, and the rules are suggestions. Wow, so rarely does one see his own past experiences and current game-play preferences so similar in another's post. For (some munchkins), finding mechanical advantage with the rules is primary, and story and setting and role-playing are secondary. I've run into this alot. I've only gamed with one or two munchkins* but I've heard many gamers express the sentiment that "one should learn the rules so one can better exploit them." Even for these Players, though, it's been my experience that once you discuss with them the style of game your group plays (wants to play) they get a kinda dreamy look in their eyes and want to join the bandwaggon. I think we've just all had experiences with bad DMs. After that a Player just wants to learn the rules, like a defense mechanism. -W. E. Ray * Spoiler:
I define munchkin as a "rules-lawyer" who plays the game just to annoy and disrupt by pointing out inconsistencies in the rules or the DM's rules-interpretations. I define Powergamer as a gamer who tries to exploit the rules for his own benefit while trying to subvert (or cheat) other Players and the DM.
I'm definitly type A. Well, no one's perfect ;)
Yes definetly. Whichever style of game a group plays, this is very important. For me I let the Players know before a campaign that I may secretly change things (dice rolls, NPC abilities, etc.) during fights to make it a better gaming experience. However, I also tell them that if I do choose to "break the rules" for a particular encounter I will not allow a PC to die in that encounter. Of course, the Players won't know if I'm running the fight fair or not so they can't tell if an NPC can or cannot kill them in that fight. They also have no way to know if I'm keeping my end of the bargain but have (almost) always trusted me anyway. Another aspect is that my games are pretty lethal. I kill characters and I do so pretty regularly. Its extremely important that my players are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that I'm playing fair. Again, very true. I think if I ran a heavy TPK game we would have to be much more strict with the rules. PCs die in my campaigns, even regularly, maybe. But nothing like what you're describing. I've gamed in a couple of those campaigns myself and I've never felt comfortable. Different Rock-N-Roll for different folks, as the saying goes. -W. E. Ray
Indeed, my system does not have levels either. Think about about it, no Hit points, no levels...
Here's the rhetorical question I asked a lotta folks after the mags were cancelled that wanted to get a refund instead of the *Pathfinder Charter* tag: Are you never going to buy D&D stuff again? I understand there will be alot of folks who aren't happy with Paizo's final product. But will those folks really not buy gaming stuff anymore? I think the questions you have to ask yourself are 1} What is the best gaming product/ gaming system out there? and 2} What company is most likely to respond to its customers. In case you missed it, Erik Mona responded to this question 9 minutes after the OP. The EiC and Lead Designer have also posted. And this is not unusual. Are you really not going to buy anything else? -W. E. Ray
I run a resounding "B"-type Game as described in the OP. In fact, the game system I (and various gamers I've played with over the years) play now is a homebrew system which (tries to) eliminates all of the verisimilitude problems with the "A"-type Game. No more Hit Points, for example, but that's just the beginning. It's my experience that Gamers everywhere (100% of ever gamer I've ever met across 30 years and 8 states) wish for a game of heavy realism. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to make a mechanically smooth and playable game that is also realistic. Moreover, as the majority of DMs are poor referees, DM/Player trust can often not be established well enough for DMs to have "absolute law." -W. E. Ray
Question 1} I dunno about the Pathfinder design but everyone needs to go back to the Dungeon adventure, "Practical Magic." The argument the N necromancer makes for why his skelitons and such should be the chimney sweepers, lantern-lighters, brick layers, etc. is quite good... even if the adventure is only average. -W. E. Ray
Not that anyone hasn't thought of this, yet, or said it, but WotC already has their on-line thingamabob -- I forget what they call it. Meanwhile, D&D players have lost Dragon and need something to take its place. Wolf, if you go Pathfinder D&D then both groups of gamers have a product to buy: KQ for Pathfinder and/or WotC-online for 4E.
-W. E. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
