RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Note: Not sure this is the best place for it)
As most everyone knows I write for fun and share the fun on google docs.
I've been trying to get "The Druid's Daughter" off my brain and into text for some time now. Finally had a spark of creativity and the next problem popped up. Who do you write for?
On a player level, there are three general 'tiers' of player.
- The Optimizer. By this I mean the guy who always takes X feat because X feat is best at level Y for class Z. At the high end of the scale of course are monsters like AM BARBARIAN and AMY that, while I'd not allow, can theoritcally exist.
- The average guy. Somewhere around iconic level. The fighter who spent a feat on skill focus sense motive because he got sick of the rogue lying to him. (for example)
- THe suboptimal build. Either the guy who took a less than optimal feat combo. (Like the guy who took all the reach feats, but never gets to use them.) or the 'role player' ("You took Skill focus HOW MANY times?")
On top of that are the charcters.
- Do you build your adventure around the 'big four' (Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard) or do you build it for other classes to shine?
- How big a party do you plan for? Four? Five?
- Do you assume 15 point build? 20? 25?
Just wondering what others do.
Oh hey, I've been thinking about this a lot lately as well.
I think writing for the average person, with an eye towards the optimizer, is best.
This generally means that any nice passive abilities, or minimal action cost active abilities, should be given around 3rd level. 2 levels dip is feasible, 3 is just bonkers for the optimizers.
Theoretically, I assume Elite array. The other questions I don't really think about, since I just do player options.
Although, one of the main things I keep in mind is to not marginalize other characters and classes. Except for the rogue. Rogue Talents are one of my favorite things to give to other classes, since the rogue is a personality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the one campaign I wrote, I assumed the players would be somewhat optimized, but not perfectly optimized... I knew the players well enough to know they'd cover their own bases. So...
I don't know if it's helpful, but know thy group is key to when I write.
Contributor
|
Generally, I shoot for a few things:
-Balance the adventure for the Big Four, but include some perks for the other classes: tangles for the druids/rangers to bypass, people to use diplomacy on, some alchemical gear, etc. Most of the other classes sub for one of the Big Four in one way or another anyways.
-I shoot for 20 point buy, since that's what Pathfinder Society uses. Most people playing more or less powerful characters than that are doing it for a reason, they want more/less challenge in their games. Let them have it.
-I always write for a four player party, but I could see the appeal of five. Four is just a nicer number to work with as a GM, IMO. It's easier to multiply by 1.5 for six players, or by any other fraction of four to get appropriate challenges for other sizes of party.
I write for the Role Player... and to piss off the Munchkin
Yay needless antagonism!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I write for the Role Player... and to piss off the MunchkinYay needless antagonism!
It's not needless. When I join/start a new group like I have recently done (just moved). I let players build what they want. Run a few starter sessions to get a feel for play styles. Then I introduce Moriarty. The villain seems to always be a step ahead and knows how to neutralize the parties favorite abilities. The munchkin(s) quit the group now their ubercombo is worthless and I am left with a core bunch willing to roleplay and try to out maneuver the villain. All is well and there is much rejoicing!
It's not needless. When I join/start a new group like I have recently done (just moved). I let players build what they want. Run a few starter sessions to get a feel for play styles. Then I introduce Moriarty. The villain seems to always be a step ahead and knows how to neutralize the parties favorite abilities. The munchkin(s) quit the group now their ubercombo is worthless and I am left with a core bunch willing to roleplay and try to out maneuver the villain. All is well and there is much rejoicing!I write for the Role Player... and to piss off the MunchkinYay needless antagonism!
As a professional munchkin, I can say that this never works. A good munchkin has at least six backup plans. In my case, they're all sunder.
|
As a professional munchkin, I can say that this never works. A good munchkin has at least six backup plans. In my case, they're all sunder.It's not needless. When I join/start a new group like I have recently done (just moved). I let players build what they want. Run a few starter sessions to get a feel for play styles. Then I introduce Moriarty. The villain seems to always be a step ahead and knows how to neutralize the parties favorite abilities. The munchkin(s) quit the group now their ubercombo is worthless and I am left with a core bunch willing to roleplay and try to out maneuver the villain. All is well and there is much rejoicing!I write for the Role Player... and to piss off the MunchkinYay needless antagonism!
I'll take a Loony over a munchkin.
But there's a munchkin in our group...
he sets fire to things... and pees on stuff (and people)
a lot.
|
|
I write for the average party of 4, 20 point buy.
I don't assume anything about races or classes, but try to make sure every lock has a key, every monster with a weakness has something it's vulnerable to about, every trap, a bypass and any necessary knowledge a handy book or NPC to provide the same exposition. Essentially, playing a class makes things easier but nothing is impossible for a group of aware players who are smart and pay attention.
|
I write in a duality of sorts. I design as if the world formed without the characters in it... because it did. City maps, topography etc I designed long before even meeting the people I play with.
Bad example- Paris. I do not redo my maps or redesign the city because a players takes a [vehicle/whatever] that is inconvenienced by the size of the roads.
Opposite mindset- When it comes to the actual adventure, I always customize it to the party I believe is going to be playing it. If no one is playing a [class] I do not put in (too many) instances where that class is required or optimal. Of course there are exceptions.
(Note: Not sure this is the best place for it)
As most everyone knows I write for fun and share the fun on google docs.
I've been trying to get "The Druid's Daughter" off my brain and into text for some time now. Finally had a spark of creativity and the next problem popped up. Who do you write for?
On a player level, there are three general 'tiers' of player.
- The Optimizer. By this I mean the guy who always takes X feat because X feat is best at level Y for class Z. At the high end of the scale of course are monsters like AM BARBARIAN and AMY that, while I'd not allow, can theoritcally exist.
- The average guy. Somewhere around iconic level. The fighter who spent a feat on skill focus sense motive because he got sick of the rogue lying to him. (for example)
- THe suboptimal build. Either the guy who took a less than optimal feat combo. (Like the guy who took all the reach feats, but never gets to use them.) or the 'role player' ("You took Skill focus HOW MANY times?")
On top of that are the charcters.
- Do you build your adventure around the 'big four' (Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard) or do you build it for other classes to shine?
- How big a party do you plan for? Four? Five?
- Do you assume 15 point build? 20? 25?
Just wondering what others do.
"Tier" implies one is better than the other. So I'm a tier.
Gee, that's insulting.
Call them types, or genre-interest.
As a professional munchkin, I can say that this never works. A good munchkin has at least six backup plans. In my case, they're all sunder.It's not needless. When I join/start a new group like I have recently done (just moved). I let players build what they want. Run a few starter sessions to get a feel for play styles. Then I introduce Moriarty. The villain seems to always be a step ahead and knows how to neutralize the parties favorite abilities. The munchkin(s) quit the group now their ubercombo is worthless and I am left with a core bunch willing to roleplay and try to out maneuver the villain. All is well and there is much rejoicing!I write for the Role Player... and to piss off the MunchkinYay needless antagonism!
One versus the other can quickly turn into a pissing contest, like this illustrates.
A better method is to take the player aside and try to communicate. Outline the goals of the campaign. If their play style causes too much conflict, then another group is more appropriate. Otherwise, give them the opportunity to adjust, and plan on meeting them part of the way.
He called them 'tiers' for a lack of a better word. Not tiers. 'tiers'.
There's no reason to get offended over that.
He called them 'tiers' for a lack of a better word. Not tiers. 'tiers'.
There's no reason to get offended over that.
Tiers implies one over the other, yeah. It may have been jumping on my part, and I'm sorry if so.
I'd prefer a different word, though. "Tiers" exist in minmix forums to place classes as a "Tier One" or "Tier Two" class. This can mean that one is better than the other. In marketing there's also the "top tier" of a product. Alternately, with achievements, we have "getting to the next tier." That is, the higher up, the better.
Use of "tiers" with types of players then implies...
With the antagonism already between 'Minmax Players' versus 'Roleplay Players', using a word that has less negative connotations when applied to people is a better choice.
Skill Focus (craft/basketweaving), Skill Focus (profession/sailor), not a single stat over 12. Totally the best roleplayer, right guys?
i tend to write for optimised characters since its often easier to scale back encounters rather than scale them up.
i always write for 5 pc's and 20 point buy.
the only thing that i don't really take into account is classes, when i play i like sitting round the table and solving the problems as they come. so i feel that an adventure having no traps just because you have no trap finder feels a little wrong to me. though once again i tweek on the fly, if theres no trap finder none of the traps will be impossible to detect, just impossible to bypass without someone taking a hit, thats where all the parties prep work comes in.
same with tanks, if your all playing casters you better have a plan for avoiding getting spanked in melee.
*drums keys*
What would do you think about "style"? I think the original poster is on to something, here. It would help to have a generally, if even loosely, defined set of "styles" when approaching play. For instance:
System Style
Medium Style
...and so on. Because it does determine the "type" of character someone makes, and the expectations of the group.
I'd rather, if I sat down at the table, begin with meeting everyone there and discussing game interests. And then the SECOND thing would be...but what style?
I think most gamers view the Roleplay/Optimized scale as something like this:
Story/Flow-based <------------------------------------------> System/Achievements/Goal-based
Now, if your immediate reaction to the above is to say, "but you can be both!" then bear with me. A person definitely can--being interested in both would place a person in the middle. That is, they can share both interests equally.
Most, however, are either to the slight left or right of the middle. Some are more than slightly.
And then as with any style of play, or view upon a subject, there are the "endpoints." That is, instead of more centralized viewpoints, more polarized ones. That is natural.
Now, it is my guess that frustrations come from a lack of communication. That is, expectations are not clearly outlined--an understood system of definitions would help with this (though not eliminate it, certainly--that is just an admission that no system is perfect). That is, a player being oriented towards one side of the spectrum wants the game to tilt more towards their interest, rather than the other way around. This is how personalities, interests work.
Tension might also come from a player, believing their view is the correct one (as all of us do, though I'm talking about a certain level of 'I am right' here). And from there, subsequent attempts to swing a more endpoint view onto an opposite endpoint game, or towards a middle-of-the-road game (and when discussing this, remember that we all tend to be slightly to the left or the right).
Drives you crazy, doesn't it? When someone does that on any topic?
I'd also propose that in general, we should remove the words "roleplay," "optimize," and "minmax" from the discussion and replace it with descriptions of interest. The reasoning here is as follows:
These words have specific connotations within the gaming community. Being "roleplay-focused" is seen as desirable, so someone who is system-focused may say, well of COURSE! I'm roleplay-focused. The reverse is true as well, or it might cause someone more story and flow-based to say, well of COURSE! I don't enjoy "minmax" because well, minmax is associated with munchkinism...and a caustic, undesirable and pushy personality.
Just as "roleplay-focused" can be associated with unintelligent frivolity.
The mud DOES fly both ways. I knew a player once who went around spreading rumors because they believed that about "roleplayers." Because the "roleplayers" weren't system-focused, they weren't worth the time of day, or basic respect...and needed to be taken in hand like a child.
I also think most of us would recognize that that isn't normal behavior. And yet, I imagine we've encountered it.
And I imagine it's been unpleasant.
That's the extreme, and the unpleasant personality that burns all of us and creates walls instead of bridges. It exists on both sides of the fence--that extreme end of things that happens because for every middle, there are endpoints.
But, I'd also like to think most of us are reasonable people.
And that it helps to communicate, to lay out clear expectations. And to keep in mind that endpoints will always be endpoints, but that most gamers, if they've expectations explained and laid out in front of them, will attempt to get along with the group. And then ask, say--we played one style one time, can we shift it next time?
And that we benefit from removing words that have gained such connotations that they attempt to make our decisions for us.
I don't think roleplaying really factors into your writing style as most of in character and gm npc roleplaying is off the cuff rather than meticulusly planned like challenging encounters.
If your talking about time spent writing that time is nearly always spent on a basic plot arc, a few npc idea's, fleshing non com npc's out with a bit of basic background and strategy then the lions share of the time goes into system mastery and the rules for the actual encounters.
If you pc's go hunting into on the evil necromancer insted of kicking his door in and fighting through his horde its relatively easy to come up with a stat/level drained paladin called Daria who barely made it out alive from the last attempt, wild eyed from lack of sleep in a cot at the temple of Sarenrae the cleric looking after her will tell you the necromancer is haunting her with nightmares to taunt her before withdrawing behind the curtains...
Then having a landlord who knows the necromancers "Igor" comes into his tavern every weekend for a beer and that he's a talkative drunk...
My group would probably fill a session with stuff like that but they're just as likely to use the kick in the door approach and waste all my prep time if i stat out npc's to talk to rather than smash.
(Note: Not sure this is the best place for it)
As most everyone knows I write for fun and share the fun on google docs.
I've been trying to get "The Druid's Daughter" off my brain and into text for some time now. Finally had a spark of creativity and the next problem popped up. Who do you write for?
On a player level, there are three general 'tiers' of player.
- The Optimizer. By this I mean the guy who always takes X feat because X feat is best at level Y for class Z. At the high end of the scale of course are monsters like AM BARBARIAN and AMY that, while I'd not allow, can theoritcally exist.
- The average guy. Somewhere around iconic level. The fighter who spent a feat on skill focus sense motive because he got sick of the rogue lying to him. (for example)
- THe suboptimal build. Either the guy who took a less than optimal feat combo. (Like the guy who took all the reach feats, but never gets to use them.) or the 'role player' ("You took Skill focus HOW MANY times?")
On top of that are the charcters.
- Do you build your adventure around the 'big four' (Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard) or do you build it for other classes to shine?
- How big a party do you plan for? Four? Five?
- Do you assume 15 point build? 20? 25?
Just wondering what others do.
- Average guy
- party of 4- 15 points
- assume balanced party, but provide at least one opportunity for each class to shine.
In addition, I consider it good form to ensure that every single skill can be used at least once within an adventure to either bypass a threat, or advance the plot or provide an advantage in a battle.
It depends on a very large number of factors.
Who are the players? Are they experienced? Are you GMing for a group of people you don't know or has it been your group from a long time? Do they know each other? What are their favourite works of fiction? Was their first contact with RPGs a videogame? Do they like to play many different systems or are fanatics of just one? Do you accept major feedback and suggestions during the writing or do your players prefer to not know anything in advance? Do they like to try new thing or are usually lazy? Is this a one-shot or a large campaign? Do you want your players to have mindless fun or taking this seriously? Setting is homebrew or estabilished, detailed or almost nonexistent?
These and other questions I can't really think about right now will largely influence your adventure.
The only thing that should be costant is this one: I should always go for whatever my players enjoy the most in that particular moment, cause maximize the enjoyment is the GM's job. Addendum: always be prepared to change things on the fly according to the player's preferences, even if you run a premade module.
To aswer OP's question, I first must say that his distinction between tiers of players is both oversimplifying and a potentian source of misleading, so I wouldn't count on that at all to decide how to run an adventure. I start a session assuming two things: that the players want their characters to be part of an adventure, because that's what the game's about. If they are only interested in killing monster and taking their stuff, or if they prefer deeply narrative intrigues where dice rolls are almost never made, I'll adjust things accordingly on the run. Usually a couple of sessions are enough to figure out how to tweak your game.
Here's my answer to the other questions:
- I build adventures for whoever's in the party. If there are 4 fighters and no spellcaster I should tailor the adventure on them. Putting traps just because "a rogue is supposed to be there" is not something I like to do.
- Same as above. I'm not picky: where I live finding players is so difficult that I couldn't possible be. If there are 8 people at the table I'll try my best, if there are only 2 I'll run the adventure nonetheless.
- Usually 20 pt buy, but depends a lot on the questions above.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Skill Focus (craft/basketweaving), Skill Focus (profession/sailor), not a single stat over 12. Totally the best roleplayer, right guys?
Actually I'd call that suboptimal in my description above. There's a reason I avoided the term 'role player' in my tiers. Namely that any amount of points on the sheet can be 'roleplayed'.
Of course I forgot 'people who read the worst into whatever is written.'
Aside, while not adventure design a lot of my design logic from the caltrop golem is also creeping into the adventure design.
I write based on the audience I'll be having. I know what each of my players wants to see, and I know that they want to be challenged in weird ways. For Pathfinder, my typical session has either 2 major combats or 1 major combat and 2-4 minor combats, with the major combats being significant challenges that have a moderate to high chance of killing someone if they're not on their toes. Minor combats are usually tied to the story, but are usually things that are there to satisfy the desire for mindless killing.
Story is essential. Drawing the players into a series of events is important. The biggest thing here, though, is that I only write in plot points. "A thief tries to come through the window at the inn while the party sleeps" is the extent of a plot point. I want the players to mold my storytelling from there. By remaining flexible, I make sure that its everybody's story, and not my story with train tracks.
When I write an adventure... those points don't come up till I am putting the final polish on the adventure.
-I start with a general story.
-Then I start adding details, focusing mostly on the NPCs and their stories and motivations.
-Then I start looking at ways the PCs can get involved. I make a list and start expanding each option as needed. I try to cover the bases as best I can.
-When I am satisfied that I have a broad range of ways the PCs can enter the story, then I add polish. I look at each player at my table and try to drop some spicy encounters or events into the story that may not be about the main plot at all but focus instead on one or more characters. I can always tie a subplot back to the main plot in a number of ways if the player gets too distracted. So I leave an out in each subplot that drops the player's attention squarely back into the main action.
-Lastly I review the mechanics... this is the boring part. But I need to make sure the fights and challenges are appropriate to the PCs.
I base it all on the party. I try to give everyone in the party something to do and a chance to shine. I also like them to lose every now and then or there is no real challenge to the adventure.
Who do you write for?
I assume "the average guy." My table is a mixed bag of optimizers and newbies still learning the game, so aiming for the center seems to balance out well.
Do you build your adventure around the 'big four' (Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard) or do you build it for other classes to shine?
My players almost always come to the table with a handful of warrior types, so I generally assume there won't be a wizard, and if there is a cleric or rogue it will only be a couple levels of a multiclassed character.
How big a party do you plan for? Four? Five?
My table hosts an average party of 8, but often a player can't make it, so I plan for 7.
Do you assume 15 point build? 20? 25?
Depends on the array we are using. Currently my player's use 17, 16, 15, 14, 11, 11 (due to good rolls on the player's part to set the communal array), so I have to plan for 25+.
7, strong-array using barbarians and fighters...at least it is easy to tell the kind of game my player's are asking for.