Cattleman's page

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but

...

It's just an encounter with a moral component, and not too specific to a warzone.

I've consulted with the greatest writers in the land, and after many days of hard labor, I think I've rectified the situation.

19. Escorts for a cart/caravan are required. This is meant to secure a temporary peace (an act of good faith) between two armies. The contents are a secret, but at some point during the trip it becomes apparent that you're transporting slaves.

Do you secure the peace offering and try to fix things afterwards, or do you free the slaves and abandon helping such a distasteful situation?

More importantly, and the reason I say this, is that all of these encounters are meant to be for PCs who are doing something else. They aren't soldiers or hired guards, they're adventurers. Even more, they're adventurers who already have a quest, and who are making a very real decision about if they even have the capacity to accept new quests as they pass through the area.

Yes, I've GM'd before. I get it.

This makes a much more real and full world, where the PCs aren't the only ones solving problems, and in fact very clearly don't have the capacity to do lots of things they wish they could. They can't stay and help the villagers repair their wall, but someone else will, because there are other real people in the world who are working to better themselves.

Truly. I really do get it.

Instead of the PCs struggling against the evils of a world, it's the PCs existing in a world that has different sides already engaged in different struggles, which the PCs are only a small part of. This gives much more agency to the NPCs, which I think creates a more immersive experience.

I just want to point out that you didn't comment on the one about spilled grain. Also notable, your suggestion here:

The next village the PCs are planning on visiting, where they will stay the night, is entirely abandoned.

I'd defy you to find a campaign that that doesn't fit in. It's a fine suggestion, but it's also not war specific.

At a small village near the battle lines everything seems quiet, but several villagers act very nervous. Everyone is trying to rush the PCs through town.

This one also fits in any campaign, other than the few words mutated to fit your request.

So when the above examples (grain, hostages, literally just an abandoned village) weren't particularly tailored for war I added my suggestion because I figured a couple words wouldn't be such an issue.

_______________
Now, for the sake of re-railing and being mildly productive:

30) A town is under the brutal thumb of a group of soldiers and locals are being publicly executed and tortured. You find out that it's because a spy lived in the area and they assume the citizens know where he is (or that one of them is the spy.) Capture the Spy alive (or maybe convince them he's dead) and you'll save the remaining townsfolk.

[This could be solved many ways: tracking the dude and capturing or killing him, convincing the guards some unrelated body or a citizen they already killed was the spy [use some mcguffins], framing someone [especially with mindcontrol or ventriloquism spells], convince them new orders have arrived and the Spy is small fish, convince them he never existed.. etc..]

31) A truce with some defenders of a small fort has been established with carts of clothing and other supplies. All seems well; but coincidentally those in the fort are falling terribly ill.

Don't forget about the Rule of Cool. Sometimes as a GM, a player does something so outlandish, but it won't work in any kind of way, but sounds so awesome that I need to let them try it. I call in Rule of Cool, set them a check to pass, and if they do, Rule of Cool dictates that they pulled it off.

I've definitely done this at times; sometimes it lines up with the rules (and I didn't know) and other times it shows a logical flaw in a trap or something like that. I had some Arrow Trap type things, and so the party crawled under them. Seems fine to me!

EDIT: Another example: Jump Attack. while you can technically Move (with an acrobatics check to jump) and then attack; I ruled you could include the fall damage (to yourself and the opponent) with the attack, making it a full round deal. This resulted in my player's Greatsword Wielding Lvl 2 Pally getting a crit the first time he did it and a whopping 42 damage to a small-time bandit wizard not paying attention.

That story has not only provided several laughs but resulted in his character finding more opportunities to do this; those Troglodytes never saw him coming as he lept out of the sewer above. That'll teach 'em.

Railroading has a broad and deep number of interpretations I think. If you know the BBEG is going to do X from session 1, is that railroading? Some may say "but what if the players stop it!" and you respond "it happens too soon!" or something; some will consider that railroading no matter how many things the party can do in the world that thing X is happening.

Some of those same people would see that there is a way to stop it rather than dealing with what the BBEG does; but because it's a single way; it's railroading (even though they have the option to do it or react to the problem.)

Some others may think that if you offer only 3 ways to solve the problem that that's railroading. Some may think that the very idea that there is a problem to solve is indeed railroading.

That's my interpretation of the lack of consensus anyway.
_______________________________________

In reality, even a sandbox game needs stuff to happen; a world to live in. This leads you to have some plot points and some side quest things. Plot points (as narrow or broad as you make them) will always involve some amount of railroading based on the expectations of the GM and the Players.

It's when the Rails are apparent *and* the players become annoyed that it's a problem. If the story is "off the rails" and the players are annoyed; they in fact are looking to get back "on the rails" because you've been too vague with what they should do with their characters. If they are not annoyed, then what you're doing is working for them (even if it's not working for the campaign or for yourself.)

Long story short; I'm in the middle. I've built a plot that can be tackled over time or more deliberately and an area to exist in that is affected by it. The players are somewhat compelled to solve it because the area they're in is changing in a way that is suspicious and/or bad. They don't have to pursue it (and interestingly, some actions that would probably not happen could derail it quite a bit) but their own interests seem to be enough to cause them to pursue it. This is pretty ideal.

IMO, railroading happens because a GM has built a plot/world that people don't care about. If your drop your players somewhere and their interactions begin to show them that it's changing in a way that they don't like; they will *want* to solve the problem.

I know what the term means in a general sense. However, in my 41 years on this globe I have learned that some terms can have a variety of meanings to a variety of people. What I am looking for a conversation about what it means to you, what is a good optimized character.

It's kind of a trick question. Optimizing is more of an adjective (Optimal) and requires a context. If you say "Help me optimize my Monk"; it still requires qualifiers to "What are we optimizing?"

F.E. What if he wants a weird Archer-Monk? He puts out restrictions, and people work within that framework to give him an optimal solution that fits those restrictions as best they can.

This means it's very much like you said; "Help me optimize <a thing>" is usually finished in the post as "Help me optimize <a thing> <with these restraints>." Thus it could be skills, a wand-using barbarian, etc..

When someone says it without qualifiers, they are (in my mind anyway) likely looking for the highest DPR/battle-utility they can get.

So in an upcoming game I'm looking to play a Tiny race and possibly even smaller, my issue comes with realizing that while size bonus makes you hard to hit, it somehow makes you easier to grapple? How does that make sense, like a Tiny pixie flying around is hard to hit but easy to grab? In 3.5 grappling and other combat maneuvers required a melee touch attack to initiate contact before calculating what you roll vs the opponent to succeed or fail. So smaller creatures were still hard to initiate contact with, but once grabbed we're easy to hold onto and crush. Now in Pathfinder it seems like if you're fighting tiny and Smaller enemies grappling is easier to initiate and hold, but Why? Am I missing something?

You're still the size of a chicken. It's easy for you to get places that are difficult to get to you in (requiring squeezing or being unable to reach you in many cases) but you aren't hard to actually grab.

I know from owning cats and stuff all my life that things that are "tiny" (for the purposes of this game system) you're not all that hard to catch aside from getting under things or behind things. The only thing that Cats and Chickens have going for them if you are having difficulty isn't their size, but their speed/mobility.

Cats, IMO, are supremely easy to "grapple" if you can get them and the "if you can get them" is completely dependent on the environment and if they can exploit their climbing/speed/hiding; NOT their actual difficulty to grab.

I can see the argument for "diminutive" creatures, but even then, in the last year I easily killed a mole with a shovel and caught a cornered mouse by hand no trouble; and I'm just a regular guy. Without a hiding place or an ability to really utilize your climbing/flying/hiding/speed or erratic behavior.. I mean.. there's nothing stopping a regular guy (let alone magical creatures and Elves and stuff that have enhancements for that kind of thing) from grappling much much better.

I attempted to do a small "Bring a dollar (or two dollars)" a couple times approach, mostly because I'm buying a good amount of materials as a GM for the entertainment of others; but it was unreliable and I don't feel right doing it. But it'd be the same for paid material. The real expense is the models and stuff to me, not writing material I want to have people play.

It seems that most (including myself) believe that Cursed items are better done as "Items with interesting drawbacks" and/or plot items. I think this is just an evolution of the game that the old cursed items table just doesn't do it for most people now; because drawbacks leave something usable and adds something to the game where as Cursed items that just punish you for failing a check are unexciting for both the DM and the player.

It's worth noting that in the same way that I (by the recommendation of others) use a "Click" rule for traps (so the party can react but may not know what's going on); something like that for Cursed items that would normally "feel" like traps is a reasonable approach probably as well.

Something like the Sword-is-a-snake thing: "You feel the sword begin to move without you." The player in this case may drop the item, examine it, or some other action. If the action would help them, let them avoid the damage or get a save (depending on their action.) This allows you to put some of those items in the game without it just being an HP tax and a lame event. Instead, you've given them back their agency by basically making a very tiny encounter (much like a party deciding whether to Break, Hack down, Avoid, or Lockpick a door.)

Just to quote

Special Attacks: A zombie retains none of the base creature’s special attacks.

Special Qualities: A zombie loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks

Feats: A zombie loses all feats possessed by the base creature, and does not gain feats as its Hit Dice increase, but it does gain Toughness as a bonus feat.

Abilities: Str +2, Dex –2. A zombie has no Con or Int score, and its Wis and Cha become 10.

It can't cast spells because:

Arcanist:
To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the arcanist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell’s level.

Cleric:
To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.

Sorceror:
To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.

[etc, etc, etc]

It lacks the ability to cast spells because of it's stats and that's the way every spell caster is defined. This is technically not RAW, since the dragon isn't a (whatever), but it's identifiable also from the Zombie template when you look at the chart:

Challenge Rating: This depends on the creature’s new total number of Hit Dice, as follows:
HD CR XP
1/2 1/8 50
1 1/4 100
2 1/2 200
3–4 1 400
5–6 2 600
7–8 3 800
9–10 4 1,200
11–12 5 1,600
13–16 6 2,400
17–20 7 3,200
21–24 8 4,800
25–28 9 6,400

It cares only about the HD of the creature, because every spell, ability, special attack, etc.. has been stripped of it and it also lacks the ability to attack more than once per turn; probably with it's slam unless it had a natural attack that was better than it's new slam (which is unlikely because the slam is of a size larger than it should be with extra strength bonus on it.)

This is evidence because CR is usually not *just* the HD; it's the overall HP, AC, BAB, etc.. but since the monster is being stripped of everything it care only about that stat since everything else is basically controlled automatically from the template (HP, spellcasting, abilities, etc.)

There is only one direction for games that don't cull the most powerful options, and that is that they will gradually gain more power.

Magic: The Gathering is a grand example. While it doesn't advance in power leaps and bounds each set, if you want things to be fresh and new they have to be somewhat exciting. Exciting things are good, and generally mean that the most powerful builds possible will increase in number or become more powerful.

The fact people can make a 20d6+(big number) fireball at like.. level 5 or 10 or w/e is a good example.

That said, I find it strange it matters in a game like this. Players think "I need to make the most powerful guy possible!" and don't realize that they're only really competing with eachother. Furthermore, the GM will adjust difficult to some degree to suit the party (if they're any good) meaning that while you're fighting a harder thing.. you really didn't increase your power level a ton relative to your challenges then.

It's weird to me that a game where I can literally make stuff up that controls, kills, or injurs the players, that people are concerned with classes being too good or too bad.

This really boils down to intra-party competition rather than ease of getting through a campaign.

Some fights that a CR calculator say are "impossible" or "very difficult" are exactly right for my players based on their class abilities and what not, and others that are "Easy" or "Normal" are brutal because of the situation or mismatched ability sets/spells.

I really hate to lift the veil on this, but it really is a treadmill that ends in nihilism lol.. Make the character you want, your party will appreciate what you bring to it; and don't make a big deal about intra-party power differences. Fill the niches that it needs and you'll be cherished.

First: low level PCs don't give off evil auras, which by itself can discourage the continual spamming early on as little information is revealed.

Second: If you forge a minor alliance for mutual benefit early in the career, trust can grow that way. This is how you show them that people of disparate ends may work together.

Third: Don't give them the option to attack the "Evil" guy. If you randomly kill a guy in town with a bunch of guards, you'll have to convince them somehow you were just. Indiscriminate killing based on alignment is not somehow good just because they are of the opposite alignment. It has to be just.

F.E. A paladin can't just "Detect Evil. GAHHHHHHH!!!!" <chop guy in twine> and be somehow the good guy. It has to be Just or else you're as bad as an evil guy indiscriminately killing people.

While I won't be harping on about minor alignment problems with my party, major ones like killing the innocent will probably involve a large quest with your now-very-mediocre guy atoning for his act(s) or finding new gods.

That'll teach you in a hurry that the gods don't just give you great power all willy-nilly.

I feel like, aside from neutrals, this is basically a "Kill 'em all and let god sort them out" position; and I've never heard that as anything but a joke.

The unfortunate thing about this discussion is that it's obviously an attempt to do evil (kill indiscriminately) and claim it's fine; but it also misses the moral ambiguity that can make people's decisions matter.

Warning: Depressing real life dilemma inside

Stuff like that is far more interesting to probe IMO, as the positions to choose from are clearly not ideal. In the situation presented in the op, the ideal solution is "Lol I get to slaughter this guy with no consequences"; which is just a "having your cake and eating it too" solution.

There's a lot that's hidden. +2 Str + Damage-dice + Reach (maybe) makes the damage go way up. +2 Str + Size + CMD/CMB makes the opportunities to mess with high-damage players (grapple, trip, etc.) lower.

Both of these encourage players to be "damage-race" types, which I personally don't want as much. If I can get a grindy battle, people are happier IME, so creating interesting disablers and higher HP/DR/Healing types is good.

So, IME, the "large" player pushes me to have to make encounter "too difficult" and it makes it more likely I'll kill players and virtually guaranteed it'll make encounters less interesting either way.

I am personally an E6 GM, maybe someday I'll change my mind.. but the encounters and the design of levels and plots seems like it is less hokey and like it matters more.

That said, I tend not to start people at Lvl 1, but rather start at 2 or 3, because I want their character to grow, but I feel like it is somewhat immersion breaking that level 2 you are sometimes twice as tough as you ever have been in your life, or level 6 you regularly take multiple blows that would've each killed you by themselves when you started off. Most of my NPCs are multi-level even at CR <1 (and on the pfsrd website to boot!)

The same reason I like E6 is the same reason I feel meh on Lvl 1; I feel the progression of a character should follow some kind of vaguely believable arch.

On top of this (and not my suggestion) I've been converted to no-xp systems too. I just arbitrate certain goalposts, quests, or enemies that result in the level-up and feat-gain and whatnot. Honestly, I am crazy enough I do it with skills to! But that crazyness is still experimental..

Building stuff is as easy as making it and adjusting the CR. I've made monsters using Eidolon Rules, making it up as I go along, taking monsters and reskinning them and retooling them, or just reskinning monsters in general.

Need scary grabbing zombies? I took the zombie template with Grab and Bite (or w/e) and adjusted it to have a poison, then slowed the zombies down so they're easier to get away from. No problem for the players.

Need a thing with Slam, Tentacles, Claws, etc? Use either the Mutant Template, the Eidolon rules, or start from scratch. Worked for me on multiple monster types.

Need a weird egyptian giant thing that functions like Radament in diablo? Time to build. [though in this case I started with a guy, added unholy, gave it a poison attack, dropped some attacks, added some HP, and moved the CR by 3 in the end.)

It's a totally made up system. If you're a player trying to do it, just ask if the GM would allow it from a Necrocraft or a Fast Zombie on something that had pounce. You need a zombie without Staggered to make it work properly though. (That said, I wouldn't blame your GM if he goofed that.)

IMO, since it's not like they die if they go get the potions from the punishment, I'd punish them. The point of the Geas is to get them to do the thing in a time period; artificially extending the time period cheapens the point of the spell.

What's stranger is that if they go back to doing the Geas, 24 hours later they're healed of it all anyway.

Given it's a temporary punishment that fixes itself when he gets back on task, just punish him. That's the entire point of the spell, and the punishment literally only lasts for about the duration it sounds like they're traveling.

Alternatively, you should probably phrase the Geas to be subverted specifically, or to be done in a time frame, or things like that; that way you don't get into these situations.

Sounds like you're just new. I've done a couple of small campaigns but there's a lot to get through. I heavily recommend reading TheAngryGM's board. Basically everything on there is golden, from improvising, to how to manage your players, to how to start a campaign, to how a session should work.

Some general tips from that:
* Combine rolls or use passive perception/knowledge. If it's not interesting then you shouldn't roll, and if you instead want to combine perception/knowledge as "aid another" type tasks, that's an ideal way to cut down on pointless rolling.

* Don't ALLOW your players to do anything other than Ask a Question or Perform an Action. With that, add a caveat that outside of Feats that require naming to understand what you're doing, you can't name a skill or anything in the above statements. They should *describe* what they're doing and you should then say "Ahh that sure sounds like you're jumping over the moat and attempting to grab the wall. Roll and Acrobatics check!"

Don't let them say "I want to roll an acrobatics check to do X" they can not only be wrong, but it takes them out of the game. Make them communicate in RP land.

* Don't ALLOW out-of-game speech. What they say is what they say in game, minus some tidbits. They can't say "We should kill that guy!" without the guy hearing them. They can't say Gamespeak because it doesn't make any sense, outside of some feats that require it (power attack, cleave, etc) They can't say "I want to intimidate him" they have to actually say something intimidating and then you say "Ahh, That sounds like you're trying to intimidate him! Roll a d20 intimidate check!"

* All of the stuff I said before

* Plan events and things that your players can interact with, but don't assume you'll figure out how they'll do it. They will always focus on the wrong thing, or come up with ideas that ruin your railroad.

Instead, have an event. "The monster is devouring a corpse in front of you.. what do you do?" The monster is busy, so could be avoided. it is hungry, so satiating it with your own food could be possible. It's a monster, so you can (of course) just hit it a bunch. The point is, you didn't plan "This is so cool cause they'll fight it." you planned "This is cool because they'll have to get around this thing."

Another example: Put a slow mean monster in a cavern. They run into it. They can now either avoid it best as they can while it moves around, they can fight it, etc.. and on top of that, it makes your DMing more interesting, because you'll be thinking about what the monster would do at each point. Does it chase them? Is it smart enough to cut them off? Can the players actually get around it? Can it be lured?

Then it's a game.

All you're trying to do is set the stage and then provide cutscenes in between. Think of Deus Ex: Human Revolution every time you set something up. DE:HR gives you not only a boatload of ways to get through it (stealth mode, climbing, knocking people out, guns blazing, using air ducts, sprinting through and crossing your fingers, etc..) but it works the same too.

You get passed some stuff, see a guy, talk to him, you're now in a conversation cutscene where you can fail (sometimes.) Get to your destination? Cutscene to transition from A to B.

Yeah, you can talk to people, look at the world, listen to the news stations, etc.. this is like interacting with NPCs that aren't part of the story or your descriptions of the world. The parts where they need information or have a conversation that can actually fail, those are the cutscenes or interactive dialogs. Everything else inbetween? Usually it's up to the player how to approach it if it's being done right.

Deus Ex man, Deus Ex.