|
As a GM (and as a player) I'm interested in games in which PCs are able to survive almost indefinitely, to become something both great and memorable. At the same time, however, I'm interested in a game where the threat of death is constantly looming and decisions can have a severe, lasting impact on a character's well-being.
That having been said, I think I want to run a very difficult game in the future, but I'm worried that it might be less fun and/or less memorable for my players if their characters are dropping like flies or dying in less dramatic ways (drowning, starvation, etc; as opposed to falling in the heat of battle).
I need to prepare to run this future game in the best of both worlds of survivability, if that's even possible, to keep things challenging without compromising the game's (quasi-)realism.
Can any seasoned GMs offer general advice on how to prepare for a game's desired lethality in advance?
|
|
After reading most of the 'Death and Dying' rules:
- I presently run death at negative Constitution score.
- I allow all Conjuration (Healing) spells to be cast spontaneously.
- I don't necessarily allow characters to decide whether or not to return to life. (I allow spells that don't afford targeted souls the choice.)
- I require difficult-to-obtain material components for resurrection spells. (Anyone have a Phoenix egg? No? Anyone have a shovel?)
- I typically have a comatose condition, with it's own rules, for severely injured characters.
I imagine I'll go back over these rules a few times though. This is good stuff.
|
I have tested them extensively, and they work magically. A guy by the name Justin Alexander wrote several awesome articles i had luck to stumble upon. These optional rules on death and dying were one of them. And they are even cooler to implement in PF because most save or die spells now deal hit point damage.
I find that aiming for near death as a GM, including while RPing enemy actions, is the right combination.
The dying rules (negative HP and the like) are pretty well calibrated for suspense. I tend to favor enemies that will wear down HP reliably rather than take huge chunks at a time, so that they stand a better chance of being in negative HP than being killed outright.
To that end, I also run marathon encounters in general, which helps with a great number of balance issues.
In my opinion you should first consult your players and see whether they would enjoy a more difficult game.
The skill of being a great GM is in many ways linked to making most encounters memorable and challenging, perhaps in different ways.
That said I would much rather play a difficult game with some realism involved to a classic game. I just like that play style.
For example, I've enjoyed the lethality of 2nd edition immensely even though I disliked the system.
In order to preserve the difficulty aspect of your game your players will need to be challenged constantly and die occasionally (i strongly believe in this), and I think you need to strike the fine balance in doing that. It's no fun if players die all the time for all the stupid reasons, but at the same time threat to their characters must also be real and ever present.
Talk to your players and be prepared to challenge them more often. My players enjoy lethal, less heroic and more gritty campaigns. I think such campaigns work great mainly because players feel that they achieved real success when they advance in levels or finish a difficult campaign. In short, it's much more rewarding but it won't work for everyone.
I kind of like hero points, myself (not necessarily the system in the APG, but hero points in general). Having one or two "get out of jail free" cards is good for cultivating that "we escaped by the skin of our teeth" feeling.
I should note, however, that I like an easier game than many people; I don't need my PC to get knocked into negative HP every fight in order to realise that the world is a dangerous place.
|
|
I kind of like hero points, myself (not necessarily the system in the APG, but hero points in general). Having one or two "get out of jail free" cards is good for cultivating that "we escaped by the skin of our teeth" feeling.
This is exactly why I created this thread. I have the APG on my gaming shelf but it didn't even occur to me to revisit these rules. Could I bother you to elaborate on (your variation of) them a bit?--I'd like to know what house rules you've amended to the system here? I do have the APG, and I'll have a look at it before I post again, but when I originally read the hero point system I was not impressed, to be honest. I recall something about netting a hero point for buying pizza... I'm a firm believer in hero points for pizza, but only in real life.
This system might complement my setting, after a few adjustments.
I have a version of hero points that I call luck. It is much simpler than hero points, and I think more dramatic as well.
You can spend a point of luck to add 1d6 to any roll immediately after the result was determined. I let them roll 1 die at a time until they either succeed or choose to live with the failed roll. Watching everyone sit up and take notice as a player gambles their luck away has become my favorite part of the game.
I kind of like hero points, myself (not necessarily the system in the APG, but hero points in general). Having one or two "get out of jail free" cards is good for cultivating that "we escaped by the skin of our teeth" feeling.This is exactly why I created this thread. I have the APG on my gaming shelf but it didn't even occur to me to revisit these rules. Could I bother you to elaborate on (your variation of) them a bit?--I'd like to know what house rules you've amended to the system here? I do have the APG, and I'll have a look at it before I post again, but when I originally read the hero point system I was not impressed, to be honest. I recall something about netting a hero point for buying pizza... I'm a firm believer in hero points for pizza, but only in real life.
This system might complement my setting, after a few adjustments.
(Urgh...lost my post.)
I've played with quite a few different hero/action point systems (going back to Fame & Fortune points in old school "Top Secret", and including several homebrew systems). The ones I liked generally fell into two categories: lots of weak hero points (e.g. that can add +2 to a roll) or very few strong hero points (e.g. that can allow you to cheat death). I'm lukewarm on systems where you get a few weak hero points; at that point, it hardly seems worth bothering at all.
A simple system might be to give your players a single hero point that would allow them to "cheat death" that refreshes whenever the character goes up a level. So if you face two lethal situations in one level, you're out of luck.
|
|
I have a version of hero points that I call luck. It is much simpler than hero points, and I think more dramatic as well.
You can spend a point of luck to add 1d6 to any roll immediately after the result was determined. I let them roll 1 die at a time until they either succeed or choose to live with the failed roll. Watching everyone sit up and take notice as a player gambles their luck away has become my favorite part of the game.
I love this and I'm stealing it and I'm impregnating it with further rules. This is my idea thus far, evolved from yours:
- Players have a luck ability score. It will have various uses (as I come across a need for them in the system/campaign setting I'm writing).
- Players have Xd6 luck rolls per game, where X = a positive luck modifier. Luck rolls can benefit all d20 rolls and damage rolls, except for knowledge skill checks.
- Players have a critical success range increased by their luck modifier, if positive.
- Players take Xd6 more points of damage when critically hit by an enemy, where X = a negative luck modifier.
- Players have a critical failure range increased by their luck modifier, if negative.
How many points of luck do you give your players? How many do they start with? Do their luck points refresh?
(Urgh...lost my post.)
I recommend Textarea Cache if you want that to never happen again. A sequence of CTRL-A and then CTRL-C before submitting also helps.
I'm not a big fan of cheating death, to be honest, but I'm still looking into the hero points.
...The Alexandrian...
This site is wonderful.
As a GM (and as a player) I'm interested in games in which PCs are able to survive almost indefinitely, to become something both great and memorable. At the same time, however, I'm interested in a game where the threat of death is constantly looming and decisions can have a severe, lasting impact on a character's well-being.
That having been said, I think I want to run a very difficult game in the future, but I'm worried that it might be less fun and/or less memorable for my players if their characters are dropping like flies or dying in less dramatic ways (drowning, starvation, etc; as opposed to falling in the heat of battle).
I need to prepare to run this future game in the best of both worlds of survivability, if that's even possible, to keep things challenging without compromising the game's (quasi-)realism.
Can any seasoned GMs offer general advice on how to prepare for a game's desired lethality in advance?
There are two ways to do this that I know of.
One is fudge the dice for and against them. This also includes changing spells/feats/etc out for your bad guys on the fly if you choose the wrong ones.
Two is to know the party well enough and have enough ability to craft an encounter that can bring them to the brink of death without killing them. This is my normal method. It might take some time to develop though.
Three is some combination of one and two. Personally I never change a character on the fly. I will fudge to help the players, but never against them. That is just my preference though.
As a player I can often tell when a GM is fudging and so can some other players so I would suggest doing it only when you have too.
Keeping the player's and their character's abilities in mind is a good idea also. Creating encounters is more of an art than a science.
I love this and I'm stealing it and I'm impregnating it with further rules. This is my idea thus far, evolved from yours:
Excellent! I look forward to hearing about your changes.
For your edification, here is the exact text of the rule I use in my campaign:
At any time the player can spend a Luck Point to:
This effect can be used just before the roll is made, or immediately after the roll result is announced, but before any other further unrelated rolls are made. You may spend any number of Luck Points on a given roll, and you may roll Luck Points one at a time until the desired outcome is achieved or you run out of Luck Points.
Using Luck Points does not require any type of action. Luck Points may be used by unconscious, dying, or even dead characters who were involved in the current scene. Once spent, a Luck Point disappears forever.
Each PC and important NPC receives one Luck Point at character creation. You gain one additional Luck Point per level, one luck on your birthday, and you can gain any number of bonus Luck Points through in-game actions.
Acts sometimes rewarded with Luck Points include but are not limited to:
|
|
...Luck Points...
These sir, are quite obviously the rules of a GM in sync with his group. I say that because you award points for relative situations, as well as occurrences of roleplaying which I simply expect from my players. I also require obsessive, streamlined rules that solidly explain every nuance of every instance of play; The kind of rules that defy misinterpretation and that don't require thought on my part, to mentally double-check my impartiality. In this instance, rules that snuff out the possibility of players comparing their characters' selfless heroism.
I'm that GM. (Pause for pity.)
That being said, this will probably be a work in progress for quite some time, but every bit of insight in this thread helps.
On a another, similar note, I notice there's some discussion about comparing stats or adjusting (fudging) a game in progress. I prefer not to do the latter, as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I find that sufficient preparation of the chosen setting is enough to mostly ignore the former.
Fortunately, the situation above rarely occurs, because I encourage my players not to make characters with death wishes or tendencies to take obvious risks. (And I would make the risk very obvious to anyone listening.)
But I digress... I think I'm looking for good house rules and methods of setting description to ensure that survival in a very dangerous locale is possible, provided the effort is made. I don't entirely know how to articulate that, which is why I asked for general thoughts and ideas on the matter.
Is the happy medium when half the party dies and the other half doesn't, or when all the party is half way dead?
Or is this a glass half full thing where you want half the party alive, or all the party only half alive?
And how do you be only half alive anyways?
|
|
Is the happy medium when half the party dies and the other half doesn't, or when all the party is half way dead?
Or is this a glass half full thing where you want half the party alive, or all the party only half alive?
And how do you be only half alive anyways?
Given those choices? Half-alive, I guess. Ideally, the party will be hurting for resources, wounded, scared, and lost in a world that defies order and logic, with equipment that they're praying won't fail them when bloodthirsty denizens of the region inevitably locate them.
Death and Dying.
As much as I like a great deal of what the Alexandrian has to offer, the bit on resurrection undercuts everything else presented on death and dying. The removal of raise dead, resurrection et al. seem to be completely subverted by gentle repose, a spell that both a) is lower level and b) requires no special material component. I can see a lot of groups espousing a completely metagamist view under this system:
Random PC: "Well, I'm not sure about this, guys... all rumors indicate that the BBEG means serious business, it's possible one or more of us might meet terribly gruesome ends."
Party cleric: "While that is a good observation, I do have 3 copies of gentle repose prepared... so as long as you guys keep me alive, I'll make sure to stuff you periodically in my bag of holding III as you drop. That way I can securely bring you back to life with my trusty wands of cure light wounds three days from now, assuming I don't get LOLpwnt in the interim without a chance to word of recall..."
Not that I'm not open to ways to make death a more meaningful obstacle, but introducing new meta-spells to overcome the limits of extreme HP loss along the way subverts the intention of more realistic rules.
Well, first of all, a fix is very simple...change the duration of gentle repose and move the original up several levels...voila...problem solved.
I think that still sidesteps the issue. The original intent was to come up with a robust system that eliminates the transition of a true threat of death (at low levels) to death being merely a speed bump (at higher levels), as well as improving verisimilitude between the real world and a world where those with great resources would only ever truly die of old age.
Moving gentle repose up a few levels doesn't fix the problems at high levels / for those with great resources, and shortening the duration also isn't much of a threat if said high-level party can teleport or word of recall to safety in just a few rounds.
Hopefully I'm not coming across as antagonistic - I like where this discussion is headed. I just think the whole system would do much better without the gentle repose effect at all. It's already pretty forgiving that basic healing spells can reverse death. After all, a 750gp wand heals 450hp if all heals are maximized (400 if the target is "deadifying" at a rate of 1hp/round) - sure, it might take 5 minutes to do so, but that's still not an enormous obstacle for the majority of fights most groups go through.
...Luck Points...These sir, are quite obviously the rules of a GM in sync with his group.
I cannot imagine a higher compliment.
On a another, similar note, I notice there's some discussion about comparing stats or adjusting (fudging) a game in progress...
You and I are very similar on this issue. As a GM, I let the chips fall where they may once the session starts — including with character death. To do otherwise would offend my sensibilities.
But just because a death is random doesn't mean it has to be sudden and ignominious. This is why I like the incremental post-roll luck rule; it gives the player a few moments to process the fact that their character could die, and it gives the GM a moment to come up with something more apropos than "he does 27 damage".
It doesn't really matter how you award Luck points, the important rule is that you get to roll them — one at a time — until you succeed or run out.
This turns the normal terrible-roll scenario into a mini-game, with players starting out rolling the minimum luck needed (for example, 2d6 to close a seven point gap) — I find that roll is where people start leaning in and paying attention in a way they normally do not. If that roll comes in low, then the player starts to ask "do I throw good luck points after bad?" (answer: always) and so the investment gets bigger and bigger. The dramatic tension is great.
If it ends badly, and they've rolled their entire pool of luck points, sometimes five or six (one or two at a time!) then they've actually had a period of three rolls to "see it coming". I find that when player death comes at the end of this process, it is much less of a shock to the system.
So you may not agree on how I award the points, but I advise you to look closely at how points are spent in your system.
|
|
Well, first of all, a fix is very simple...change the duration of gentle repose and move the original up several levels...voila...problem solved.I think that still sidesteps the issue. The original intent was to come up with a robust system that eliminates the transition of a true threat of death (at low levels) to death being merely a speed bump (at higher levels), as well as improving verisimilitude between the real world and a world where those with great resources would only ever truly die of old age.
Moving gentle repose up a few levels doesn't fix the problems at high levels / for those with great resources, and shortening the duration also isn't much of a threat if said high-level party can teleport or word of recall to safety in just a few rounds.
Hopefully I'm not coming across as antagonistic - I like where this discussion is headed. I just think the whole system would do much better without the gentle repose effect at all. It's already pretty forgiving that basic healing spells can reverse death. After all, a 750gp wand heals 450hp if all heals are maximized (400 if the target is "deadifying" at a rate of 1hp/round) - sure, it might take 5 minutes to do so, but that's still not an enormous obstacle for the majority of fights most groups go through.
Ok, what i meant was that the duration of gentle repose should be changed to say 10 minutes per caster level, and then 6th level spell called keep fresh or something would have the normal gentle repose duration... Also, i fixed the thing about healing. It is only maximized when hit points are under zero. The moment they go above zero, the caster has to roll for healing as normal.
|
|
...Luck Points...
After reading your rules again, I noticed you don't have a maximum amount of luck points per character. Do you have any problems with players hoarding points?
I'm exercising caution in creating my own luck system, because if I do it poorly, challenging situations may be overcome through basic player math.
I'd also ask how you handle DCs. If you were to place (for example) a locked door in an area, with the intention that it would require a high level of skill to unlock, what DC would you assign to the disable device check with the foreknowledge that a PC could just blow many luck points simultaneously?
PC: I attempt a disable device check to pick the lock. I spend 2 luck points for +2d6. My total is 50.
DM: The DC was 20. You completely disassemble the door, organize the pieces alphabetically, and gift-wrap them in under a minute.
While I realize that players should have knowledge of the amount they missed the DC by (to spend points for rolls after a failure, as I interpreted your rules), I still think the possible results are too high. I'm beginning to think that my luck system should allow re-rolls instead, because I think that DCs are already too low to begin with--especially at high levels.
Nope, no maximum. I do have a hoarder in the party (the barbarian), but her player usually ends up spending his luck on saving the wizard (who as an abjurer, suppresses the enemy mages and makes his life easier).
I have a rule that you have to "explain" the transfer of luck to your allies, usually through a clever quip or commentary about the scene and its consequences; in character. It's a good rule, it has made for some great times at the table.
What you might expect to happen is that when players realize a resource can potentially save their life in a much more effective way than any other resource, they will hoard it. It would have to be an alarmingly bad situation (room filling with acid deathtrap) to motivate a PC to burn luck on picking a lock. And that's fine with me, because this is a rule about creating a slight "death buffer" — not enough to stop death altogether, but to slow down and see it coming by at least a few (progressively more intense) rolls.
So that's the issue with your example: my players would never spend luck on a roll unless they had failed already. And then they would roll one at a time until they succeeded or ran out of luck .... or very occasionally, they might abort after only one or two points. Luck points save lives, so they are self-regulated to life-threatening situations if the player has any capacity for foresight.