How fun and/or fair are dungeons with weird environmental effects that make some spells useless? For example, a dungeon where teleporting doesn't work? And do they seem more fake or DM fiated than a regular dungeon?
Creative Director
|
How fun and/or fair are dungeons with weird environmental effects that make some spells useless? For example, a dungeon where teleporting doesn't work? And do they seem more fake or DM fiated than a regular dungeon?
In my opinion; they're neither fun Nor fair, but used in strict moderation they can indeed force players to rethink the easy tactics and force them to tackle things differently. But one dungeon after another that blocks teleportation, or one NPC after another who's immune to all divination effects can get old real fast. It's better to let PCs play with their toys and reward them for gaining high level spells like teleport or find the path, and to design adventures that reward them for having those abilities, than it is to render them useless.
Doesn't the FR underdark prohibit Teleport?
|
Doesn't the FR underdark prohibit Teleport?
More like inhibit...
Some areas can be teleported into, others cant...
And not to sound too condescending, but what is it with all these questions of “fun” all of a sudden? Prior to 4e, I just didn’t hear it all that often…
It makes gamers sound whiney, and in it for only the uber-munchkin min/maxing of their characters, with nothing short of “I must kill EVERYTHING in my path” or its just not fun…
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
Creative Director
|
Doesn't the FR underdark prohibit Teleport?
This was actually introduced back in Descent into the Depths of the Earth, the first "underdark" adventure back in early 1st edition. It's not something that'll be present in Golarion's Darklands in an overwhelming amount (although there'll probably be some areas that have weird radiations that DO inhibit teleportation as a nod to nostalgia).
Actually, I was thinking of a specific trap. Maybe I can alter it to have a Dimensional Anchor aspect as well.
And I've always been concerned about the fun of the game. I've played with a bunch of DMs who didn't seem to care about their players' fun; they just wanted to tell a story. If you want to tell a story, write a story, but don't force people to act as your actors. Probably my most favorite things about role-playing games is their collaborative nature. I like how everyone has to work together for a common goal, both players working as a team to figure out a challenge, and the DM & players working together to create a group experience. I don't like it when the DM dictates what the players should do, or eliminates all their options.
And not to sound too condescending, but what is it with all these questions of “fun” all of a sudden? Prior to 4e, I just didn’t hear it all that often…
It makes gamers sound whiney, and in it for only the uber-munchkin min/maxing of their characters, with nothing short of “I must kill EVERYTHING in my path” or its just not fun…
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It actually became a pretty predominant topic of discussion and design philosophy throughout the later days of 3.5, actually. You may have noticed that more and more rules involving fast-recharge abilities, and abilities utilizing swift and immediate actions, appeared in the last few years. This seems to have arisen from a serious self-examination of the game on the part of the designers, asking "Would it really be unbalanced to allow abilities of type X or Y in the game," and finding the answer was "No."
Much of this rethinking originated with the problem known as the 15-minute adveturing day, where parties kick in the door, blow through their "first teir" abilities, then rest after just a couple of fights to make sure they're at full strength all the time.
Traditionally, it seems that the response to this behavior has been "Knock it off, you're being sissies and ruining the suspension of disbelief!" Obviously, this is mainly from the DM's chair, and the people in the DM's chair tend to be more akin to the actual game designers (and vice versa) than the players (on average, of course). Thus, the DM/designer response to said behavior carried a bit of "You're not playing my way, so you're playing wrong!" mentality.
The more modern game design seems to have taken the players' interests and perspectives into account and asked if what they are doing is really wrong. The answer that has been produced: No, not inherently. Players want their characters to do well, and the easiest way to do that is make sure everyone is at full capacity for most of their fights. Rather than labeling this mentality as munchkinism or a similar term, the designers have accepted it as a normal and acceptable approach to the game.
The true problem, it seems they have reasoned, lies with the rapid pace "napping" the party does to recover. That can throw a wrench in the works when it comes to trying to establish a heroic narrative to events in the game. So, to accomodate the players' desires and the DM's story, the response as been more rapid-recharge abilities.
This process opened up what I'm going to term as a "Pandora's box" of rethinking game design, but I don't mean that in a bad way. Immediate and swift actions became more common as people realized that many theoretically cool abilities weren't getting used. The reason was the simple economics of actions. Yes, this or that option might have been good, but if it took too long to use in the fast-pace world of 3.x combat (fast pace meaning 3-5 rounds of combat on average, not fast pace in real-world resolution time around the table, where it tends to be very slow), the opportunity cost of the actions taken to employ said ability was too high compared to other, less dramatic, but more effective, tactics. The end result there was repetative, "boring" gameplay. The answer: swift and immediate actions.
This is what is meant by considering "fun." And yes, it does touch on social contract theory, as well. The design philosophy today, and that of many/most DMs, holds that players have a right to expect the abilities they choose and gain will work the vast majority of the time. An occasional "nerf" can mix things up, but it gets repetative fast and pisses people off more than it enhances gameplay. When the players are pissed off, they aren't going to care about the story the DM is trying to tell. (This also gets into the question of "What is DM fiat?" Of course, almost every stimuli the players respond to is techinically DM fiat, but modern thinking seems to indicate the DM has a responsibility to check his own power regularly and take the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the players into account as well). So, returning to the subject of "nerfing" players, why do it? The modern answer: "Don't."
And if some of this sounds very similar to MMOs like WoW, don't be surprised. This is one area I support the bleed-over between genres. MMOs have actually done a lot in recent years in terms of showing other ways a game can be run and still be "balanced," opening up many doors for game designers in the tabletop arena to as "What if...?" and figure out how to incorporate the good bits of MMO design into games like D&D.
A lot of this has carried over to 4e, it seems. It's one of the few things of the new system I can find some agreement with.
Contributor
|
On a related track, I'm often torn about use of certain spells and magic items. For example, from the point of view of game world realism, any villain with the resources to use magic that interferes with divination about his plans, should. Kind of stupid not to. Likewise, every restricted area of every temple should have forbiddance cast on it. And yet, from the point of view of the game it feels lame to use these things over and over.
I'm often frustrated by this problem.
|
Creative Director
|
On a related track, I'm often torn about use of certain spells and magic items. For example, from the point of view of game world realism, any villain with the resources to use magic that interferes with divination about his plans, should. Kind of stupid not to. Likewise, every restricted area of every temple should have forbiddance cast on it. And yet, from the point of view of the game it feels lame to use these things over and over.
I'm often frustrated by this problem.
That's mostly a problem with forbiddance being permanent, really. But the spell DOES have a pretty costly material component, so it's pretty easy to just say that most churches simply never have the thousands of gold pieces available to pay for a forbiddance even IF they're lucky enough to have a high-enough level cleric to do the trick for them in the first place.
As for villains using divination magic, they certainly do. In my experience, the best way to handle this is the same way a GM should handle SUPER HIGH Intelligence scores. Use information that the villain simply shouldn't have about the PCs against them; aka, cheat a little bit and use your own knowledge about the PCs to aid your villains.
There were two places I used forbiddance - Mud Sorceror's Tomb, which my players found annoying and repetitive, and the hidden "sub-basement" of the greater halls of Maure castle, where a Dracolich hid his pylachery. I did have the entire mountain range around his lair be a "no teleport zone", however. The PCs had gotten in the habit of using the cleric to whisk them around the world, so they didn't like it at first, but they soon got used to the idea. With anything that inhibits a PCs abilites, you have to use it sparingly. The spellcaster isn't going to like the idea that he worked for 17 levels to get energy drain, and you throw nothing but undead at them. The easiest way to handle "instant kill" abilites, as well as making the game fun, is to rotate the types of encounters the party faces. The character who is terrible at fighting raging barbarians can have a chance to shine when fighting a spellcaster who has mind crushed the tanks in the party. BBEGs, of course, should have ways to counter most of the PCs best tactics. Not to say that they need to be invincible, but, particularly if they have prior knowledge of the PCs fighting style, they need to be prepared.
They're perfectly fair, in my view, and can also be a lot of fun.
Further, if the dungeon or other area the PCs are investigating was put in place by a powerful wizard, it makes sense the wizard will have anticipated certain spells and put in magical counter measures.
|
And not to sound too condescending, but what is it with all these questions of “fun” all of a sudden? Prior to 4e, I just didn’t hear it all that often…
It makes gamers sound whiney, and in it for only the uber-munchkin min/maxing of their characters, with nothing short of “I must kill EVERYTHING in my path” or its just not fun…
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Mostly a significant upsurge in writers who could not write within the rules, combined with writers who indulged their personal dislikes of various game elements.
Gratuitously taking away animal companions, or declaring that some spell or other does not work because otherwise some egregiously intricate plot would not be possible very quickly becomes "not fun" on a fundamental level beyond simple play preference. It is the deliberate paladin alignment hosing writ large and extended throughout the game, all in the name of some sudden requirement that every person can write every kind of plot for every level all the time with the players will always following the script and playing the game "right".
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem is the current dearth of super-hero games.
No, I'm serious.
When you write a published adventure for a super-hero game, you have no idea what kinds of powers the party will have available. In most game systems, there aren't PC "levels" that moderate when characters get particularly useful powers; a beginning mentalist can have some sort of invasive telepathy, and Nightcrawler had teleportation from his first appearance.
So you have to design an adventure, and provide guidelines to the referee, to handle characters like, oh:
Squidboy -- squid for a head, can't disguise himself worth beans, only power: water breathing. The adventure ought to have something Squidboy can do.
Captain Bright -- Dashing, charismatic, with some mild super-strength, some flight abilities, and the continuous power to shine like a million-watt lightbulb, always active. The adventure can't rely on the entire party being stealthy.
Psycho-Ninja -- Mind-reading, teleportation, martial arts and stealth up the wazoo, hates working with others. The adventure can't let Psycho-Ninja read a captured goon's mind, teleport to the villain's lair, and kill him.
Now, notice that the adventures are going to keep "frustrating" Psycho-Ninja's player, if the player just wants to pop in and slice up the villain in the first five minutes of the game sessions. Because that's not fun for the rest of the party. Likewise, in D&D, if one character can cast teleport and pop in on the villain, or pop out of a trap, or grab the major-threat Vampire Lord and pop into midair, a mile above the middle of the ocean, at high noon; if it turns into the one-stop solution to all the party's needs, then the DM needs to keep frustrating that power to keep the game fun for everybody else.
At least, in my campaigns. Yours may be different (different social contract and all), and that's okay.
The problem is the current dearth of super-hero games.
No, I'm serious.
So you have to design an adventure, and provide guidelines to the referee, to handle characters like, oh:
Squidboy -- squid for a head, can't disguise himself worth beans, only power: water breathing. The adventure ought to have something Squidboy can do.
Captain Bright -- Dashing, charismatic, with some mild super-strength, some flight abilities, and the continuous power to shine like a million-watt lightbulb, always active. The adventure can't rely on the entire party being stealthy.
Psycho-Ninja -- Mind-reading, teleportation, martial arts and stealth up the wazoo, hates working with others. The adventure can't let Psycho-Ninja read a captured goon's mind, teleport to the villain's lair, and kill him.
It sounds like the PLAYERS didn't come to a compromise on the type of game they want to play, and/or the type of group they want to play in. Most table top games aren't very good at having "lone wolf" type characters. While the lone wolf is out there howling by himself, the rest of the group is sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for their turn. Then when the rest of the group is doing their thing, the lone wolf is just sitting there, waiting. Unless they play on different days, in which case it's not really the same game and/or it is a big time commitment for the gamemaster, who now has to run 2 different sessions.
I guess one major challenge is getting the group to work well as a team. I'm currently running a D&D group with 8 players. They all began as passengers on a long sea voyage, and they didn't get along or work as a team well at all--even (especially!!!) the supposed twin PCs. But then the ship wrecked and they had to survive on a desert island for a while, and the only way each individual could survive was by contributing to the success of the group. Now they have their own ship and work pretty well as a team. It's not all sunshine and puppies, but they get the job done.
|
|
Saern, your mention of video games hits it on the head! Go ahead, call me Out-of-Touch, but video games have dulled people's senses! Everything is practically HANDED to you in a video game! Hell, you dont even have to find health packs in games any more hardly! Just duck in cover and wait till' your health meter raises back up!
You cry out unfair, unbalanced? If the PC's get all those kewl powrz, then the BEBG should have that same access, and be able to bypass their (the PCs) defenses JUST as easily as they do his!
I'm not a DM that railroads his players, but man...
The use of rules (that the players sure as hell use to their advantage) that may hinder the characters is fair game IMO...
Look at games like Call of Cthulhu...
The Books tell you from the start, your characters probably WONT survive! Same thing with Ravenloft. The books tell you, the world is Against them...
Oh, but that's not fair or fun now is it?
Wizards run out of spells, fighters run out of hit points! It's a part of 30 years of D&D tradition...
-That One DIgitalef Fellow-
|
|
I Once had a game set up where fire based spells (Fireball being one of the sorcerer's big spells) would not work in or near the "dungeon." Now I did give the players advanced warning and because of that they had a lot of fun with it. It only really bothered the one player that his standard tactics would not work. When you do this I think it works best when the players have a heads up, or better yet have a way to find out about anything that would be detrimental to thier standard tactics. Such as the warning in a riddle about fire not being sustained in the Icelords tomb, or the old explorer's journal about a particular area of the Underdark that teleportation doesn't work in or out, or even the mist shourded realm of broken dreams that doesn't allow divination spells or communication spells and even Planetars fear to go there. This I have noticed players eat up even if they miss the clues, just having them available makes for a better story. Or when the players have the chance to stop the goblins from erecting a giant pole that blocks all magic in the valley, and the PC's now have to figure out what if anythign they want to do with their new "treasure."
And not to sound too condescending, but what is it with all these questions of “fun” all of a sudden?
Yeah, how dare people want to have FUN when they're playing a GAME? Back in my day, we used to chain the players to their chairs, then put out their eyes with d4's, then jam d8's under their fingernails, and finally light fires under their chairs, using their character sheets for kindling, all while playing Donovan LPs for a soundtrack. No one wanted to have fun back in THOSE days! No sir!
Seriously, it's the same now as it ever was; the DM and players all need to strike a balance. Give 'em too much, and the amusement ends quickly; give 'em too little, and there's no amusement at all--you end up DMing for yourself.
|
|
Yeah, how dare people want to have FUN when they're playing a GAME?
As the sentence immediately after that sentence said, up until recently, I had not really heard that come up. Because, oh I don't know, perhaps people were having fun?
Maybe they weren't. Maybe they needed a video game to tell them they really weren’t having fun because the characters they played in video games were all powerful, and the pen and paper characters just looked like weaklings to them all of a sudden?
In 25 years of playing D&D (and other table-top RPGs) , the players I've encountered were content with the rules, or at the very least, knew that D&D (and other table-top RPGs) had actual limitations they had to go by. And you know what? They LIVED with it, dealt with it...
Imagine that will ya...
Go figure huh?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Yeah, how dare people want to have FUN when they're playing a GAME? Back in my day, we used to chain the players to their chairs, then put out their eyes with d4's, then jam d8's under their fingernails, and finally light fires under their chairs, using their character sheets for kindling, all while playing Donovan LPs for a soundtrack. No one wanted to have fun back in THOSE days! No sir!
What, no using the graph paper to place papercuts on their fingertips, so that every delicious chip they ate was simply more salt to be rubbed into their wounds? You guys sound like a bunch of lightweights to me...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A sea-change from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition was a shift in authority, away from the DM and towards the rules-as-written. (The relative strength of RPGA and "Living" campaigns vis-a-vis home campaigns probably had something to do with it, too.)
In AD&D, the interpretation of a player arguing with a DM about a rules interpretation was that it was --at best-- grossly rude on the player's part. You Just Didn't Do That.
Remember the idea of "the Pudgy Hand of Ghod"? Remember bolts of lightning frying PC's that the DM didn't think were entertaining enough?
In 3rd Edition, Wizards promoted the attitude seen in this thread, that the DM needs to take into account what her players want, and run her campaign to accomodate that. That when a player quits a campaign, it's probably the DM who's at fault.
It's a fundamentally different social contract around the gaming table, and it's one of the most important changes in the game.
A sea-change from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition was a shift in authority, away from the DM and towards the rules-as-written. (The relative strength of RPGA and "Living" campaigns vis-a-vis home campaigns probably had something to do with it, too.)
Remember the idea of "the Pudgy Hand of Ghod"? Remember bolts of lightning frying PC's that the DM didn't think were entertaining enough?
When I played (and DMed) 2nd Edition, we made up a whole new Saving Throw category: Saving Throw vs. Bad Puns. Relatively good for Rogues (Thieves & Bards), relatively poor for Priests (Clerics, Druids, Specialty Priests), relatively medium for Warriors (Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers) and Magic-Users (Mages and Specialty Wizards).
And of course, if the save failed, there was a random table to roll on.
A sea-change from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition was a shift in authority, away from the DM and towards the rules-as-written. (The relative strength of RPGA and "Living" campaigns vis-a-vis home campaigns probably had something to do with it, too.)
In AD&D, the interpretation of a player arguing with a DM about a rules interpretation was that it was --at best-- grossly rude on the player's part. You Just Didn't Do That.
Remember the idea of "the Pudgy Hand of Ghod"? Remember bolts of lightning frying PC's that the DM didn't think were entertaining enough?
In 3rd Edition, Wizards promoted the attitude seen in this thread, that the DM needs to take into account what her players want, and run her campaign to accomodate that. That when a player quits a campaign, it's probably the DM who's at fault.
It's a fundamentally different social contract around the gaming table, and it's one of the most important changes in the game.
Exactly. I've noticed this time and again in these very messageboards. There is often a fundamentally different approach to the game held by older and newer gamers. It isn't a distinct dividing line- there are plenty of long-term players who've adopted the new ideology, and some newer players who play games with a 1st-edition style.
But by and large, there is a division based on age/length one has played D&D. The elder gamers often think the younger generation is "too soft," and "wants everything handed to them," while the younger generation thinks the senior is "draconian," "tyrannical," "arbitrary," and distinctly "not fun."
And yes, much of this has to do with the younger generation's exposure to video games from an early age, which change expectations about what they will experience around the table.
One of the areas this becomes clearest is in discussions of PCs should be generated via traditional rolling methods, or via point buy. The elder gamers seems to favor the traditional rolling method because, well, it's traditional. In addition to the thrill of rolling the dice (everyone likes that), they seem to like letting the dice give them the raw materials to interpret their characters from. If someone is stronger or weaker than everyone else, hey, that's life. Whereas the younger generation replies by saying, "No, it isn't life, it's a game. I have to deal with inequality every day around me, I don't want it in my fantasy world, too. I want to design my character myself, and craft his abilities to fit my mental image, not leave it all to random chance. That's what is fun for me."
Me? I'm one of them youngsters (a whopping 20 years old). I personally don't see anything wrong with borrowing design philosophy from video games (note: there is a difference between this and blatantly ripping something off in an unimaginative way, as has been discussed on other threads), I prefer point buy, and I try to make sure everyone gets their chance to shine and have whatever constitutes their definition of "fun" at the table.
|
|
A sea-change from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition was a shift in authority, away from the DM and towards the rules-as-written. (The relative strength of RPGA and "Living" campaigns vis-a-vis home campaigns probably had something to do with it, too.)
In AD&D, the interpretation of a player arguing with a DM about a rules interpretation was that it was --at best-- grossly rude on the player's part. You Just Didn't Do That.
Remember the idea of "the Pudgy Hand of Ghod"? Remember bolts of lightning frying PC's that the DM didn't think were entertaining enough?
In 3rd Edition, Wizards promoted the attitude seen in this thread, that the DM needs to take into account what her players want, and run her campaign to accomodate that. That when a player quits a campaign, it's probably the DM who's at fault.
It's a fundamentally different social contract around the gaming table, and it's one of the most important changes in the game.
Maybe in your games, not in mine.
Prior to 3E there were no rules for "everything" and then some, so arguing with a DM over some obscure interpretation was perfectly reasonable. What changed in 3E was there was suddenly very likely a rule, and a DM deliberately ignoring or overruling could drastically affect what a player had planned.Even without that, a DM who relied on grudge killings before 3E either found a group of masochistic players willing to put up with such nonsense or he found himself designing adventures nobody every played. Being a Class A Shmuck was just as successful then as it is now, and all it really achieved was making you the source of not-so-apocryphal magazine and convention (now internet) stories of how not to run the game.
For me, I learned almost everything about how to provide and modify adventures for player fun while running late 1st ed and 2nd ed. The only thing was translating it into the system mechanics of 3E as time went on, and then translating it into supervising writing for 3E, with only the particular extreme quirks of 3E design left to pick up.
All WotC really changed was the opening of a Sage Advice entry from "Well, as with everything, your DM is always right" to "Well, the rule for that is on page xxx in book xxx, but remember that your DM is always right for his campaign." That they needed to include reminders for some DMs that there were other people involved in the campaign was more a consequence of those DMs driving people away from the game than any fundamental shift in power. Just as anyone can get up and walk out of a movie, turn the channel on the TV, or return a book they do not like, a player has always been able to "vote with his dice" on the game the DM has been providing.
As noted, everything in moderation. A dungeon that nerfs abilities to challenge players is acceptable. A scenario where the PC's enemy (or enemies) know the PC's strengths and set up to nullify them is better for the game. Again, as long as it doesn't start to happen every week.
The teleport issue is a variant on the fly problem, and has been discussed numerous times. If it's too big of an issue for your game, why not take it out of the next one?
I'd have to say that my experiences have been similar to Sam's. I started playing Basic and 1e in 1980 or thereabouts, with a DM who demanded total obedience to his story -- your character existed only to be a pawn in his "masterpiece." You had no say in the rules (and if you played AD&D, you're aware that the rules were arbitrary and silly and archaic enough that no one really knew them all -- especially because many of them blatantly contradicted other ones). You had no ability to role-play, in a lot of cases ("Shut up. I don't care if you say you searched or whatever, I say this trap gives no roll, you're dead!").
But there was another DM, who wanted to make sure everyone had a good time; he was willing to bend some rules if it meant that everyone stayed at the table, got along, and wanted to come back the next week. That didn't mean it was Monte Haul; treasure was given exactly as written, no more, and character deaths did indeed occur. We went through the whole Slave Lords series that way, and loved every minute of it -- we knew that death was a result of bad planning or bad luck, not DM decree.
I adopted the latter style, and never regretted it.
|
|
It is not my intention to sound like I rule from my DMs chair with a set of Iron Dice...
I reward player creativity, I let players try anything they want (within reason of course), and I encourage my players to create interesting character types, etc...
I just find it irritating when these young whipper-snappers expect the entire game to be catered to them... ;-p
Yes, the players should have fun, but does not the DM need to be having fun too?
I'm sorry, having a PC blow through every encounter you toss at them, is not fun for any DM I know (including myself)...
I know that it has been stated that moderation is the key (as in all things), but the title of this thread implies that ANY dungeon that makes some spells useless is not fair (or fun). Which even holds the implication that ANYTING a DM does to inhibit a characters abilities should not be tolerated by the players...
That’s one of the problems that I see with fourth edition (not to flog that horse all over again, I merely bring it up to illustrate my point)…
*Extreme Example*
Pretty soon (if it hasn’t happened already), a Dms not going to allow this or that class, feat, skill, prestige class, rule or whatever, and then that’s going to be considered “unfair”…
Where do you draw the line (oh, wait, that wouldn’t be fair!)…
-That One Digitlalef Fellow-
|
|
......Back in my day, we used to chain the players to their chairs, then put out their eyes with d4's, then jam d8's under their fingernails, and finally light fires under their chairs,......
And still no love for the d12......poor sad d12.....
Anyway to actually try to contribute....I just downloaded 'The New Argonauts', by SK Reynolds, and it is just a houseruled d20 setting(that is frickin' awesome!) that throws some pretty severe limitations on the d20 system to make it emulate a mythical greek setting. Is it not fair to have the players play that? I know the answer but I am just using gross exaggeration to point out my thought. Playing with a 'systemic hobble' is usually very fun. It helps break the routine and shake up the players' sensibilities. Now if you did this all the time it would then become (possibly) too much.
If I make a dungeon where scrying doesn't work then the players will play it. If I make a dungeon where teleportation doesn't work then the players will play it. There is a reason if I do that is game related and not just a 'DM being a dick' move. Now if I have most dungeons like one of the previous examples and not forewarn the PCs early in the campaign so the Wizzo or others don't waste resources and time then I that could be a 'dick move' on my part.
I'm trying to help them have fun and if that means that this area is a evocation-free zone then so be it. I don't think it would be fair for me to get b%+@~ed at for it. Mutual trust is required.
Fakey, as always, hits the nail on the head. Everyone can have fun, it's not an either-or proposition. And there's a huge gulf between nerfing something once in a while for solid story reasons, and nerfing everything because you have to teach the whippersnappers a lesson (what Fakey would call "being a dick," and I'd agree).
I've been fortunate to play with people mature enough understand that some limitations are needed, because otherwise there's no game. That way, we can all sit down and agree on the limitations, instead of me enforcing them from out of the blue like they're commandments from God or something.
|
|
I just downloaded 'The New Argonauts', by SK Reynolds, and it is just a houseruled d20 setting(that is frickin' awesome!) that throws some pretty severe limitations on the d20 system to make it emulate a mythical greek setting. Is it not fair to have the players play that? I know the answer but I am just using gross exaggeration to point out my thought. Playing with a 'systemic hobble' is usually very fun. It helps break the routine and shake up the players' sensibilities. Now if you did this all the time it would then become (possibly) too much.
Do not confuse campaign construction with ad hoc rules revisions and imperious behavior.
My online group has run through several campaigns with severe restrictions on character classes and races, and the latest features limits on feats. However this was all revealed to the players before the game began, with everyone being fully aware of the additional limits. Everyone has still been able to develop the characters they want, and is quite pleased with the game, as am I.Not using every possible option is very much not ignoring rules because you cannot write an adventure otherwise.
|
|
I just find it irritating when these young whipper-snappers expect the entire game to be catered to them... ;-p
Yes, the players should have fun, but does not the DM need to be having fun too?
I'm sorry, having a PC blow through every encounter you toss at them, is not fun for any DM I know (including myself)...
The entire game? No.
The specific contents? Almost always yes.If the players do not have a character with the Track feat, why include encounters that require it all the time?
If nobody wants to play a cleric, do you refuse to make more magical healing available?
The game does not have to be "Do whatever, I will just validate the new toys you add to your character sheet", but it should equally not be a contest of the players guessing how the DM wants them to build and play their characters.
As for characters blowing through every encounter, that happened the other week in my game. It was certainly distressing, but only because I did not have the next segment of the adventure ready, and they blew through three weeks of encounters in two half sessions. I had to fumble for filler, and take advantage of some people missing sessions to catch up on my preparations.
Was it "fun" for me? Well, to the point that it meant the players were enjoying themselves being on top of the power curve after barely surviving some fights, yes it was. A lot of fun in fact. I want the players to earn their victories, but there should also be times where they do in fact run out of bubblegum and just kick tuchas. Even Conan gets a couple of easy fights every now and then.
Where the line should come should be relatively easy. It ends at knowing the letter of the rules and begins at knowing the spirit of the game. That is the great flaw of almost all organized play. It wants the DM to be a Judge, and just regurgitate rules and process die rolls. You can pop in a CD and let any CPU do that. A DM is that extra step that makes it a roleplaying game, and has a goal of actively engaging the players, rather than passively repeating results of how they engage with someone else's story.
|
|
I've been fortunate to play with people mature enough understand that some limitations are needed, because otherwise there's no game.
Right on. Without conflict there is no story. The traditions of this game, our game, are steeped in dramatic fantasy storytelling. Challenges that are amazing, but internally consistent with the mileau you are trying to emote to players, and elicit from players, are part and parcel of the game.
For storytelling reasons, I ran a 1.5 year "frostfell" style game in which the players were told, "No flying, no scrying." right up front. This was an incredible experience.
Contrary to what many might think of some of my, "get off my lawn" views, I believe not every adventure or campaign should be the same. In fact, variety is an important spice for DMs to use.
It is not my intention to sound like I rule from my DMs chair with a set of Iron Dice...
We know. And I wholeheartedly believe in sometimes throwing something at the party that is impervious or near-impervious to most or all of their signature abilities, or designing some adventures and facets of the world the same regardless of what the PC are/desire. This subject can be a difficult one to traverse without sounding like an extremist (or sounding like you're accusing or implying someone else is an extremist) one way or the other. The generational gap may have different base assumptions and design their dungeons with slightly different goals and slightly different understandings of why "this" is there, or "that" is not there, but in the end, if the DM is competent and in tune with his players, the result is usually pretty similar.
As for the dungeons in question, I believe as a previous poster: the PCs should, at some point, be informed of this fact. Sometimes this should be done beforehand; warning from an NPC or other source that a certain type of magic won't work in The Dungeon of Nerfness. Othertimes, the situation and story may call for the players to have no advance warning.
For example, if there is a villain who knows the PCs use fly to great effect in battle, and he creates a magical ward that prevents flight spells in his lair, said villain is likely to safeguard that information very well so the party doesn't have time to come up with an alternate strategy beforehand. In that case, the players will be taken completely off guard when their fly spells (and thus their plans and tactics) simply don't work.
A lot of it comes down to how the DM presents this info to the players. I'll make an analogy to anoter recent thread: WotC's treatment of FR in the rollover to 4e. They could have made all the same changes, but presented it with better style, perhaps employing a more novelistic approach that would actually make the changes sensical to almost everyone. Instead, the brash, hand-waving manner in which they dealt with the issue has pissed a ton of people off. In much the same way, if you convey the fact that the PCs' powers are hampered in a good way that ties into the story, they're likely to take it and roll with it, even be excited and intrigued by it, much more than if the DM appears to be playing God.
To summarize my point, 95% of the time, these situations should be avoided and the abilities of the players should be incorporated into play and rewarded. But, provided such elements are used judiciously and sparingly, the way in which the DM handles and presents that situation can make the adventure truly memorable, or condemn it to failure.