Alright my fellow Paizoan uberposters, here it goes (bear with me on length):
On Sunday night my group played in a Spycraft game. An excellent diversion for me: I have been running Age of Worms and playing RPGA, so a non-D&D non-fantasy setting, and a chance to play, was nice.
The game went well. My friend had planned a 1 to 1 1/2 adventure. And we played 3 1/2. What happened? Well, our planning, rping, skill use, investigation and use of contacts joined with a paranoia of the high-damage firearms and a devious setting to make it more fun, and longer.
Afterwards, I lamented that our D&D games weren't like this. I like combat, and I like to run it, but it seems like games I play in or run seem to devolve into a plan of kicking in doors and kicking ass all the time. Even other plans seem to devolve into combat somehow. I wanted a more RP and investigation intensive D&D game. I also realized most solutions in Spycraft required us to not kill.destroy everything, or punished us if we did.
First, I resolved to re-tool my future games to encourage this.
Second, though, I had a theory. It seemed that the increased lethality of Spycraft combat, the non-combat base abilities, and the greater use of skills facilitated the game I liked.
Am I right? What is a solution? Here's what I got:
I envision this: Re-tooling classes more like UA's generic classes, allowing PCs to add the features they want. I want to also add some cool non-combat features to be available too. Lowering HP, using the DR armor options and Defense, and emphasizing skill use in the game. Lowering the magic items available and scaling spells back some. What would this do? Make combat more dangerous and spells less likely to circumvent a problem. Additionally, adding quests that cannot have so much collateral damage or need to preserve the life of foes. Ideally, the PCs would then be more careful about plunging in and more strategic, and more investigative. But combat will still be there- albeit more dangerous, and more of a thing to be used "just in case," or when they are in trouble.
So will this work? What works for others? Can this be fixed?
I'm interested in how this works out, because I plan on doing something similar for future games as well.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Another issue to consider is that in the Spycraft paradigm, access to information is easier due to contacts and technology. You may wish to provide to your players an information network that they can access and emphasize that it exists. In your typical D&D game, about the only information you get regarding the bandits is that they exist and where to find them. In a modern game, you can generally research more about the bandits, the area they are occupying, their goals, etc.
The second issue is information gathering technology. In spycraft (I assume) you've got access to nifty gadgets like nightvision goggles, long range binoculors, bugs, etc. In D&D, these solutions are available, but generally in the form of mid to high level spells. Add on top of that the fact that recon directly impairs the spellcasters combat ability (if you already cast your high level spells to gather info, they won't be available for combat) and you can see that D&D lacks good information gathering technology.
Now, all that being said, there is also something about D&D players mindsets. I always set up my lairs with supply routes, trading partners, patrol routines, and back doors. Or at least I used to. Eventually, I realized that my players were always going to take the front door, they were always going to kick it down, and any information gathering would be the incidental torturing of the random encounter they had on the way. I would love to hear if fiddling with the rules gets players to employ more scouting and less charging.
I like Spycraft... A lot. A friend of mine and myself are working on a D&D/Spycraft conversion, which is going quite well. Paladins aren't just another mounted warrior, and the system doesn't require magic to play a fantasy game. The whole process is streamlined, and, as you said, it facilitates Skill use. We've been waiting on a spycraft expansion (spellbound, to be specific) to put our systems together. As it stands now, our magic system looks a little like the old Mage (penalties for "overcasting," a little like Earthdawn (No max number of spells per day), and D&D (spell list).
On our conversion:
Paladins don't require a special mount (my biggest problem with the class, but you CAN have one), and have no spellcasting (a VERY cool look to the class, as I love to play paladins, despite my roguish intentions). Rangers do cool stuff with their Favored enemies (compare well to the Scout class in the core book, with some changes), and as it turns out, Rogues split the difference between infiltrators & snoops. It's such a modular system, and we've even been hammering out Races for the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and the Iron Kingdoms. Priests & wizards & sorcerers are, as I stated before, waiting on the next expansion. Oh, and psionics will be done for us as well, although we've got a good start there, too (I'd post our website, but I think it might be against the rules).
Okay, enough of my teasing. I love D&D (see KnighterrantJR's Mistledale Campaign for reference there, but not every campaign gets to be as story-involved as we became. The Spycraft system helps you do that easier, if not outright requires it.
I hope my opinions helped, and maybe I'll be able to either post or shoot you an email with some of the stuff we've been working on to help with flavor. If'n you want an email, shoot me a PM over at WotC's boards so I can email you what I've got, because that stuff doesn't belong on these boards.
(a bit long winded here, but I think I'm done).
/d
A very good idea and I hope it goes well. However, there are less time-intensive ways to go about doing what you want to do. Fist, actually tell the players your intent. The unspoken, average mindset is hack-n-slash. The party can't really be blamed for defaulting to that and ruining the espionage mission if you don't tell them what the mode of play you're looking for is. Tell them you want to run a game steeping in intrigue and secrets, where combat isn't the focus, but rather, finding out what what's going on is going on takes the spotlight.
Low-levels are your friends. Keeping the party there can be difficult some times, but easy solutions include slowing the XP flow and restricting money to keep magical armor and cloaks of resistance from becoming too common. Low hp, AC, and saves means combat is a lot scarier. Things can go from great to terrible for either side in a single round at any moment without warning.
In line with altering XP, stop rewarding the party for killing things! I do this in all my games, but it really works to take the emphasis off combat. Give XP for completing quests or accomplishing set objectives, but don't make it hinge on combat!
With just a little more work, you can universally work to lower hp totals in your games (for NPCs and PCs alike), keeping that threat of death around for a while longer. Alternately, you can up the damage of all weapons to make combat scarier. If you can possibly create a streamlined hit-chart that won't slow your game too much (this might be a pipe-dream), you can make combat scarier by having limbs fly off and people die of bleeding out.
Develop more uses for skills. Think of the processes they are already used for and break those down into sub-processes with about the same DCs. Then, a simple conversation with a shady figure in the bar to learn about the bandit king can resemble combat in the amount of die-rolling going on. This will keep the party more interested and give them a focus outside of combat.
While some alterations can be used to bring about specific changes, that's not even really necessary. Just because the system isn't typically played in a mode or isn't the 100% most optimal for it doesn't mean it can't be done. Unless you're really into re-tooling the system or have it mostly done already, you can probably just try stating that you are going to change the tone of the game, and then do it. If that doesn't work, think about the specific mechanics that aren't going right, and tweak them. Redesigning the system to accomplish a specific goal that it can already accomodate to some extent may be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Again, unless you really like doing it, in which case, more power to you.
I guess part of the problem is that I perceive part of the issue to be that the mechanics of D&D lend themselves to a hack-and-slash. When most of your classes have combat based abilties, it tends to force an issue. Telling the PCs is fine, but I suppose mine are a little short on attention span and occasionally hard to lead.
I've been DMing for a VERY long time, so it isnt a DM issue, even though I need to write adventures differently. I feel that the game lends itself to solving everything with violence. I know it is very medieval and all, but medieval would also increase lethality. I want there to be a fear of that fight with the Orcs. As Sebastian said, I do need to put in some groups and contacts for info. I think with the bandit example, then I need to attach motives and background that will take the PCs farther in.
Maybe I'm just dejected or just babbling here. I just think some retooling (which, yes, I do enjoy) might affect a change in the player's mindset as well as in the playstyle.
If anyone is interested, I will post some notes and ideas I am working on to alter things up.
Just a few quick thoughts. Using even one should change the game a bit in the direction you want to go.
Reduce the power of healing magic. I think it's Kyle Hunter (it might not be but lets' pretend anyhow) who uses healing magic to transform lethal combat damage into non-lethal combat damage which, you have to heal with rest.
Use critical hit tables. Either out of the Dragon Compendium vol 1, or stolen and retooled from an old Role-Master or MERP suppliment.
Alignments suck. "Well I butchered him alive in front of everybody because he was evil." By eliminating black and white good verse evil you allow for less unilateral action.
Set your game in more civilized regions. Eventually you can impress upon your players that by killing tons of people they are more likely to be branded spree killers than heroes.
Use adventures that don't require Rambo-level death. "Chimes at Midnight," "Prince of Redhand," and "The Menagerie" are few that I can think of off the top of my head. "Chimes at Midnight" could be played like an episode of Batman the Animated Series using all non-lethal damage.
Play more infiltration-style games. Sometimes you just can't win by directly confronting the enemy no matter how tough you are. Sometimes you have to play it smart. An easy way to play this sort of game is to give the characters something impossible to do like playing the "Throne of Iuz" (Dungeon 118, for 15th level characters) with 8th-level characters (just tough enough to fight the CR 8 mook orc fighter/barbarians). Change the adventure into a scouting mission to see who the true lord of the forest is, or perhaps into a retrieval mission to capture some magical item, important orc npc, the orcs' war plans, the king's daughter, a gnome prisoner, or what-have-you.
Give the characters some easy way of knocking people out rather than killing.
Short aside: A rule that I like is that a character using a weapon can inflict that weapons damage using any free limb and apply it as either non-lethal or not. This gives the rough-and-tumble fighter the ability to inflict bastard sword damage (while he is holding it at the ready) with a headbutt - something no one would ever do because obviously it's better to hit them with the sword than kick, gouge, shoulder, or smack them with the pommel/haft - something you see in lots of theatrical swordfights. Fights get more descriptive this way. Of course all bets are off for DR - you can headbutt the zombie all you like it's not going to hurt them as much as the sword.
About being a long-term DM. Truthfully, it could be your fault. Anyone can get stuck in a rut and anyone can unitentionally train the people he/she hangs around with to react a certain way to a certain situation. Change up the situations and you can change your game. Convention games are good for this because you are playing with (or DMing for) a bunch of people you don't know.
-GGG
I guess part of the problem is that I perceive part of the issue to be that the mechanics of D&D lend themselves to a hack-and-slash. When most of your classes have combat based abilties, it tends to force an issue. Telling the PCs is fine, but I suppose mine are a little short on attention span and occasionally hard to lead.
The perception is part of the problem, way back when 2nd edition came out I DM'ed a thieves guild campaign with a group that never fielded a rouge. The occuring enlightenment haunts us to this day when 1/2 of any party is a rouge class and 3/4 a rouge split class. If you approach a campiagn as an economy/war game instead of a series of adventures everyones perception will change, and you won't need to lead them anywhere.
I've been DMing for a VERY long time, so it isnt a DM issue, even though I need to write adventures differently. I feel that the game lends itself to solving everything with violence. I know it is very medieval and all, but medieval would also increase lethality. I want there to be a fear of that fight with the Orcs. As Sebastian said, I do need to put in some groups and contacts for info. I think with the bandit example, then I need to attach motives and background that will take the PCs farther in.Maybe I'm just dejected or just babbling here. I just think some retooling (which, yes, I do enjoy) might affect a change in the player's mindset as well as in the playstyle.
If anyone is interested, I will post some notes and ideas I am working on to alter things up.
The Middle ages were filled with intruige too, and while I think D20 needs optional crippling tables, or a greater death rate (which is not everyones taste) Theres nothing wrong with the system, just the way its played. Now if we could get some beefier divination spells....
Take out confirmation rolls for critical hits. All you need to do is land in the threat range. THAT should make combat scarier.
GGG- I like that rule!
I've also been thinking about toning down healing magic. Once, when starting the Forsaken Arch, the lone surviving guard of a kenku attack straggled back into town. The adventure called for the guard to pass out and spend a few days in recovery. But then, the party healer runs over and casts a cure spell, throwing a wrench in the whole works!
Since then, I've been looking to approximate real life just a bit more when it comes to healing. I was thinking of creating a series of spells, such as "ease pain," "cauterize," etc., that would heal incremental amounts of damage like a cure spell, but wouldn't necessarily save you from dying. "Ease pain," for example, would be functionally likw CLW, unless you were down and out, in which case... I never got that far as to determine how it should work differently.
The problem is that especially at lower levels, the PCs need that type of instantaneous healing to stay alive... in a combat-centric game. There's probably nothing that will make combat at least "feel" more lethal than nerfing healing spells.
Oh, and I also thought of having atunement rituals. Healings spells would only work if someone had undergone a divine bonding ritual or something. That way, the rest of the world has to go with Heal checks, but the party and certain combat-centered and important NPCs could rely on clerics in the more traditional D&D sense. The question that raised in my mind was potions and scrolls, but then I just dropped the thought all together.
Saern's suggestions are great.
Also, if you make it clear that information skills are getting your design love, then people will take them as "the best choice", which is exactly what you're hoping for. (Heck, let the info skills be a little "broken" to really encourage their use.)
The core of it, though, has to be a talk. You'll have to tell them that the next (adventure/campaign/encounter) will have a different flavor; explain what you're hoping for. (All OOC; if an IC character requests it, the players will probably just plan the most effective way to accomplish the goal, ignoring the NPC's requests as flavor.)
Rules of Thumb has good suggestions for shaking up a group's playstyle. She makes the case that whatever problem solving method works best for the first adventure or two will be the focus of the game-- if the first adventures are hack fests, it can be hard to vary that later.
Heather also wrote a couple of additional articles about Expectations, Conditioning, and Your Game that have suggestions for altering a group's play style.
There's always the option, though a bit heavy-handed, that healing spells of a divine origin would only work on worshippers of the same faith.
I do like GGG's healing notion.
One thing I have been goofing with is using the Vitality/Wounds thing, but Crits can do their standard damge to wounds- so a crit is a crit.
I am taking a nod from Alternity, where the different types of damage can be healed to the next kind.
[edit]: This is kind of where I am right now: A cure spell's dice can convert lethal damage to subdual damage. Its pluses may heal actual HP. If this still seems to generous, then we drop that too.
My current battle plan is to take steps.
First, change up the adventures. I am going to make sure I retool them with more infiltration, intrigue, etc, and add diplomacy and investigation as much as is possible. And talk to the players.
Second, I am going to introduce a few new rules to make the combat a little scarier.
If I am still having problems or if it seems the other rules might help even more, they will be introduce themselves at a slower rate.
combats in d&d do take an inordinate amount of time; I have 7 players in my game and fights take many hours; for this reason we dont have many of them; maybe a couple fights leading up to the giant climax; most of what we do is roleplay. I am thinking this may be a level based thing; at the first few levels combats were quick and dirty; but now that everyone is at least approaching epic level; we can literally spend the entire evening on one dirty knock down drag out fight. I have found that the best way to get your players to roleplay is to give them a stake in the situation; we have had several roleplaying suggestion threads with a lot of good information; it is definately worth your time to puruse the archives. I think much of this may have been in the last 7 months or so; If I could remember some of the thread names....
There's always the option, though a bit heavy-handed, that healing spells of a divine origin would only work on worshippers of the same faith.
hmm interesting idea; in my game; healing spells from a priest to a devout follower are not random, but maxed; spells upon an allied follower are random; spells on a nuetral faction is generally recieved with a random side effect (like creapy effects on your shadow or sweating black tar like substance or some such like that); and of course doesnt work on enemies unless the priest does some serious explaining. All this of course being modified by the diety in question to fit their general outlook.
My best advice, isn't mine...my friend spent quite a long time developing a world and a land called Telvia.
In this world, armor has damage reduction, hit die are halved, magic is NOT scaled back- but is rare, magic items are pretty much impossible to find without incredible resources or luck, We also use the nat 20= 30 and 1 =-10 variant rule. Weapons don't just do more damage on average, they do different TYPES of damage- for instance Damage Reduction of Chainmail (Which replaces breastplate) is Piercing 5, Slashing 5 and Bludgeoning 4...while a longsword does 1d8 slashing & 1d6 bludgeoning OR 1d10 piercing. and for purposes of the strength bonus bludgeoning takes it over slashing.
My halberd is one of the most deadly weapons in the game 1d10 slashing & 1d6 bludgeoning/1d12 piercing...yeah. I charged some poor crossbowman and crit'd him...and I forgot to roll my ranger bonus to damage against humans (I'm an elf).
There's a slew of other restrictions and things like bonus feats for fighters and paladins for mounted combat as well as cross-class casting for divine and arcane magic (divine magic isn't so much divine as another means by which to cast spells)
It is a very Medieval setting.
In addition to the DM's vivid descriptions, interesting NPCs and great plot, we're enjoying the campaign quite a bit.
I play a somewhat arrogant, but well-meaning and loyal, noblemman elf fighter 3/Urban ranger 3. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I've killed rogues single handedly and run from rogues (entered a thieves guild warehouse), been paralyzed (partly because my dm forgot that elves are immune to sleep spells and I didn't correct him quick enough) by a lesser beholder hybrid- a gauth or some alternate version, I caught a fish- who was a polymorphed man, with a saddlebag- swam in my chainmail to do it too, because I thought I was RESCUING a MAN at first, nearly drowned, stood against a charging Giant Beetle and still got overrun despite tearing his guts out with my halberd, worked for the king of Middleton, almost challenged a guard to death, and participated in a smash and grab of an Elven Nobleman Wizard's manor...in the name of the King...and I want to be a Justicar that becomes a Cavalier since I'm getting most of the mounted feats for free, though I took mounted archery because I'm a freaking elf. I still can't find or afford Elven Chainmail and I'm in the land of the elves. It'd help if I didn't spend a thousand of my friend's gold in trying to capture our man while trying to get a suit of elven chainmail. (so I can use my Ranger abilities) But yes, intrigue abound, combat is still fun, but more threatening- for instance our cleric nearly got himself killed by a lightening bolt and a subsequent fireball, not surprising, but the wizard rolled poorly on the fireball and EVERYONE ELSE made their reflex saves...Oh and my elf is a problem drinker. (how he deals with the leaning towards lawful alignment, just like a hardcase cop does, leaning on the wine, ale and liquor...) He even had a brief stint as a successful wine merchant, even though he had no training in it and it was a cover for our mission that we didn't use very well...He would have sold a whole cart full of ale, wine and rum even, but that got blown up by a flaming sphere...stupid warmage babe npc (I could have saved the horses with a simple handle animal check, stupid me)...
I'd offer you the link to his blood, sweat and tears, but I'd have to let him do that. He's Artemis Milborrow on here, but I don't think he's been checking the boards lately.
The site also doesn't appear to be functioning at the moment.
|
All this is great, and I obviously applaud all of the sentiments. However, it is worth bearing in mind that players have a preference as well as DMs.
I personally got a bit tired of hack and slash as a DM (and even abandoned the SCAP half way through because all I could see was a series of fights, one after another after another after...) and retooled with a homebrew Eberron campaign. More intrigue, more RP, lower power levels. I ran through the first couple of scenarios and got some player feedback - and while they were sort of enjoying things, they were itching for a fight. I upped the violence levels, and they were as happy as Larry.
The moral - players like fights (or at least my power-gamer types do too). Be careful about making a unilateral change to please yourself. Obviously experiment, but remember that the players will have some expectations too.
It is interesting that other systems seem to encourage different playing styles. I would suggest that settings which are more contemporary lead to players reacting more like civilised human beings - because they live in that context and understand that killing sprees lead to severe punishment. D&D has a different, wish-fullfilment aspect to it, and so leads to more dramatic action. Plus, of course, it is more of less predicated on violence - virtually all character features are about killing other creatures, one way or another - but this issue is already touched upon above.
I guess part of the problem is that I perceive part of the issue to be that the mechanics of D&D lend themselves to a hack-and-slash.
This is quoted for truth. Good to see that others recognize this fact.
As ever,
ACE
On Sunday night my group played in a Spycraft game. An excellent diversion for me: I have been running Age of Worms and playing RPGA, so a non-D&D non-fantasy setting, and a chance to play, was nice.
I think I am agreeing with with Aubrey when I say that your burnout doesn't surprise me. I also am running AoW and my burnout has been well documented in a variety of threads here at Paizo. I think it all stems from the "kick in the door" approach that AoW (and many D&D adventures) call upon.
We are considering changing things up every other week as well: Star Wars d20. While I can't stand the d20 system for this setting, a blaster in lieu of a broadsword might be just what the doctor ordered.
I think a lot of the hack and slash attitude comes from the plasticy, game-mechanicky, fake conciets of the game as played. Not necessarily anything in the rules or classes.
The idea that games consist of "dungeons" is junk. There's no place that should be hunted through room by room looking for hidden treasures and chests and dodging wandering monsters.
The game blossoms if you take it out into the actual worlds described in the various Campaign Settings--not as backgrounds for a dungeon crawl, but as real breathing worlds. Ask lots of questions about your player's characters--where they come from, what they want, and then make your plots from the various story strands of different characters.
Likewise I'd consider dumping the whole hit dice per level nonsense. I base hit points on race and let them raise it by increasing their Con or buying Toughness.
Basically the more real flesh and blood you put into the setting, the more seriously (hopefully) people will take it. The more it feels like a video game, the more the players will fall into the zombie routine of grinding levels and getting niftier +3 swords by gakking everything in sight.
I like the idea of reducing the hit points somewhat so it's not just so much standing there hacking at each other for so long, but I'm not sure if my players would agree, so it might be a while before I can find a situation favorable to implement it.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure that I'd go for such a drastic reduction as only allowing hp increases with Con boosts and Toughness purchases. I also think class should do something to the hp you have- fighters get tougher over levels than wizards do, just by their experiences. I thought about outlining a progression based on races getting 1, 2, or 3 hp per level, and d8 classes adding another 1 to that, and d10 or d12 classes adding another 2. But, that leaves elf wizards with 1 hp per level, which sounds more like what you want to do, but a dwarf fighter is left at 5 per level, which is about the average for the current system. That's no good, due to the imbalance between players. Hmmm...
Nevertheless, I'm not sure that I'd go for such a drastic reduction as only allowing hp increases with Con boosts and Toughness purchases. I also think class should do something to the hp you have- fighters get tougher over levels than wizards do, just by their experiences.
A lot depends on the campaign I guess. A lot of games nowadays have 7-10 health levels (World of Darkness, Shadowrun...) with no ability to raise them EVER. Besides, I always thought the weapons seemed realistically scaled for somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 hit points anyway. I think a lot of the cumpulsion to fight everything that comes along has more to do with the huge (and I'd argue pretty silly) discrepency between the number of hit points various monsters can dish out and take, and the power inflation of characters with hit points run amok.
As for the fighters having more--I'd say it depends on the kind of fighter. Big burly fighters I'd wager would have high con ratings and Toughness, but there's the light fast rapier wielders or archer types as well. Part of the fun of the fighter class for me has always been the flexibility of it.
Then again, that isn't to say it'd kill things to combine the base race hp with the base class hp. That would bring the average to 16 with as little as 8 or as high as 24--still pretty reasonable all around but not quite so harrowing for players.
True- raising the starting level slightly will get players through those early levels better, but leave them in a tight place later on. Also, for warrior-oriented classes, perhaps a fixed hit point increase? Something like 2 every 3 levels would end up giving about 6 more hp over the course of an entire adventuring career (presuming the campaign goes from levels 1-20). It might not be such a bad idea, but I don't see my players (the two I have) going for it anytime soon. :)
Have you considered using the Viality and Wound Points variant, to keep the standard D&D HP, but add the deadly uncertainty of vitality?