I try to not metagame as a GM. How do the assassins know who is the most dangerous?
Its already been established that the enemy knows about the players, they have been scouted in various ways that they already know about, while gathering information against the assassins guild they ran across descriptions of themselves and their abilities that the assassins are using to try and find them, they have also faced small groups of the enemy, some of whom have gotten away updating the enemies knowledge of them.
long story short its well known that the enemy knows much about them.
in their last major battle the enemy CdG the heavy hitter of the group because he was known to be SUPER dangerous (a flashy magus with a high crit weapon) they knew that their slumber hex only worked for 3 rounds and they knew the healer was absolutely amazing, (empowered heal spells that dont provoke AoO.)
having said that i only used the CdG because I forgot how it worked and didnt know it was as lethal as it turned out to be. I want to ambush them again but want to make it scary without killing them... much.
Counter builds are something I just don't do.
AD I would not go too far to build a character specifically against my players. But i would use the same tactics my characters use if they insist on some kind of exploit or trick. for example one character uses antagonize a lot and I felt it was a poor ability because its essentially a form of mind control if you use RAW. When my player insisted that it should be run RAW and not allow for realistic interpretation I then felt it fair to change one of the bosses feats to give him antagonize so that he could force the PC to do something totally stupid, highly endangering and totally against character based on a single very easy D20 roll.
NOTE: I think the hero point is a great tool for balance. i should have thought of it before because as long as the players are carefull I can basically kill them every 2 levels without actually killing them. ^_^
AD I would not go too far to build a character specifically against my players. But i would use the same tactics my characters use if they insist on some kind of exploit or trick. for example one character uses antagonize a lot and I felt it was a poor ability because its essentially a form of mind control if you use RAW. When my player insisted that it should be run RAW and not allow for realistic interpretation I then felt it fair to change one of the bosses feats to give him antagonize so that he could force the PC to do something totally stupid, highly endangering and totally against character based on a single very easy D20 roll.
Often if I explain how the player's interpretation can work against the party they normally change their minds, but some people don't listen so I understand. :)
With that aside I really don't like antagonise because it makes no sense so I just don't allow it.
Antagonize hasn't come up in our games yet, but when an exploit does appear, I explain to the players why it is something that is hurting the game and that if they can do it, so can the NPCs, and usually that's enough to discourage use of the technique.
In some cases I have outright banned exploits, but that's rare.
Why can't enemy NPCs make Knowledge checks against the PCs is they are spying on them or are fighting them and run to fight another day?
NPC's can make gather information checks, and use divination spells, but many GM's just make NPC's that know everything about the PC's even if they don't have the resources to get that information or if there is no way for certain things to be known.
As an example if no bad guys survive a fight with the PC's then they can't pass what they know onto someone else.
If the GM is going to claim use of divination spells then they should be reasonable available instead of just saying it happened when it is really not likely or possible.
Why can't enemy NPCs make Knowledge checks against the PCs is they are spying on them or are fighting them and run to fight another day?NPC's can make gather information checks, and use divination spells, but many GM's just make NPC's that know everything about the PC's even if they don't have the resources to get that information or if there is no way for certain things to be known.
As an example if no bad guys survive a fight with the PC's then they can't pass what they know onto someone else.
If the GM is going to claim use of divination spells then they should be reasonable available instead of just saying it happened when it is really not likely or possible.
I usually have watchers for my major encounters.
That is, let's say there's a bandit group that's claimed an area. For every 4-5 man bandit ambush party, there's a watcher, watching from far enough away to run, watching to see what happens. This is usually a kid or a new recruit who's not very good yet. So, he's 200 feet away, watching from hiding, and his job is to report if anything happens to the ambush group (or if they seem too friendly with a security patrol).
So the 3rd or 4th time you run into the bandits, they have a very good idea of what your party is, does, and comes prepared.
Groups sent out to specifically stop the PCs do the same thing. In fact, if the PCs are a major thorn in some BBEG's side, they may just task some mooks to follow them around, watch them, interview people about them after they leave a town, and report back. A few 2nd or 3rd level experts can do a really good job of compiling dossier's on PCs. They may even get a job as a hireling if they can (take 10 sense motive checks all around of course).
This is more likely when the group is around 6+ in level, of course. Nobody wastes resources following 2nd and 3rd people cross country. Although they might follow them in the city, but then you're talking hiring street kids and beggars.
But who watches the watchmen?
I try to not metagame as a GM.This. Simply this.
-James
It's the right concept. When the PC's encounter a threatening group or combat scenario, you remain in your GM shoes. But you also have to step out of them and play devils advocate. You need to 'role-play' the enemy NPC's.
Get in their heads and fight to the death, for your life, or for whatever reason they are there. If it is optimal to trip the team, do some flanking, sneak attack and do a CdG then that's what happens. You can't metagame in the NPC's shoes, but you need to play them to the best of your ability. The PC's sure are, and if you want a realistic game, one worth playing, you need to be able to play devils advocate as a GM. Sometimes that means dominating the fighter and having it hack his party members up. Or, if you have a really skilled and experienced group, the player playing the fighter will want to role-play being dominated and attack his party to the best of his ability.
We've been in those scenarios before and it's good to see the people at your table enjoy the opportunity to play that element through. We grappled him to the ground, but he did his best, and it's just a better game for it.
That's just the kind of gaming table I have though. I am lucky.
I try to not metagame as a GM.This. Simply this.
-James
I see this "good GMs never metagame" assertion a lot.
Metagaming by the GM is as much a part of the game as the rules are. Tailoring your encounter to the party's level is metagaming. Setting DCs is metagaming. Setting traps is metagaming. Placing monsters is metagaming. Determining treasure is metagaming. Handing out XP is metagaming.
The trick is not to "never metagame," the trick is to be able to recognize when metagaming is good and when it is bad.
Good metagaming is when the GM uses knowledge his players, NPCs and monsters don't have to make the game more fun, fair and entertaining. Bad metagaming is when the GM uses knowledge his players, NPCs and monsters don't have to gain an unfair advantage, railroad the PCs or negate some tactic that the PCs are able to employ.
I try not to metagame poorly. I recognize that metagaming is part of the job of the GM.
How you use the rules of the game is a playstyle. There is no default, because everyone uses the rules differently.There is a default. When you go specifically "by the book" you are playing the default game.
You seem to think that if there has been no CDGs during a campaign that campaign is not the "default game", because there are rules for CDG, is that correct?
In most campaigns I've been in, I haven't seen half of the rules used. I think I've seen the rules for subjective gravity used excactly twice during eleven years of gaming in 3.x/PF. Does that mean those other games where not the "default game" because the subjective gravity rules wheren't used?
Why can't enemy NPCs make Knowledge checks against the PCs is they are spying on them or are fighting them and run to fight another day?NPC's can make gather information checks, and use divination spells, but many GM's just make NPC's that know everything about the PC's even if they don't have the resources to get that information or if there is no way for certain things to be known.
As an example if no bad guys survive a fight with the PC's then they can't pass what they know onto someone else.
If the GM is going to claim use of divination spells then they should be reasonable available instead of just saying it happened when it is really not likely or possible.
Speak with Dead, them becoming ghosts, etc...
|
How you use the rules of the game is a playstyle. There is no default, because everyone uses the rules differently.There is a default. When you go specifically "by the book" you are playing the default game.You seem to think that if there has been no CDGs during a campaign that campaign is not the "default game", because there are rules for CDG, is that correct?
In most campaigns I've been in, I haven't seen half of the rules used. I think I've seen the rules for subjective gravity used excactly twice during eleven years of gaming in 3.x/PF. Does that mean those other games where not the "default game" because the subjective gravity rules wheren't used?
CdG is just like any other core rule of the game. You can guess where this is going.
I try to not metagame as a GM.This. Simply this.
-James
I see this "good GMs never metagame" assertion a lot.
Metagaming by the GM is as much a part of the game as the rules are. Tailoring your encounter to the party's level is metagaming. Setting DCs is metagaming. Setting traps is metagaming. Placing monsters is metagaming. Determining treasure is metagaming. Handing out XP is metagaming.
The trick is not to "never metagame," the trick is to be able to recognize when metagaming is good and when it is bad.
Good metagaming is when the GM uses knowledge his players, NPCs and monsters don't have to make the game more fun, fair and entertaining. Bad metagaming is when the GM uses knowledge his players, NPCs and monsters don't have to gain an unfair advantage, railroad the PCs or negate some tactic that the PCs are able to employ.
I try not to metagame poorly. I recognize that metagaming is part of the job of the GM.
When I say I don't metagame I mean giving the NPC's certain knowledge that they should not have. I don't meaning giving a monster improved init to increase its chances because I know the party is built to go first.
You post is a good example of what I meant. :)
How you use the rules of the game is a playstyle. There is no default, because everyone uses the rules differently.There is a default. When you go specifically "by the book" you are playing the default game.You seem to think that if there has been no CDGs during a campaign that campaign is not the "default game", because there are rules for CDG, is that correct?
In most campaigns I've been in, I haven't seen half of the rules used. I think I've seen the rules for subjective gravity used excactly twice during eleven years of gaming in 3.x/PF. Does that mean those other games where not the "default game" because the subjective gravity rules wheren't used?
That is not what he is saying. He is simply saying it is an option by the default rules. He is not saying you are houseruling just because you never use it, anymore than an NPC choosing not to take an AoO is houseruling.
Speak with Dead, them becoming ghosts, etc...Why can't enemy NPCs make Knowledge checks against the PCs is they are spying on them or are fighting them and run to fight another day?NPC's can make gather information checks, and use divination spells, but many GM's just make NPC's that know everything about the PC's even if they don't have the resources to get that information or if there is no way for certain things to be known.
As an example if no bad guys survive a fight with the PC's then they can't pass what they know onto someone else.
If the GM is going to claim use of divination spells then they should be reasonable available instead of just saying it happened when it is really not likely or possible.
That is just GM Fiat. If I am going to do that I might as well just metagame. Now if the players do something to justify the bad guy coming back as a ghost, that is different.
Speak with dead works assuming the bad guys have a cleric, and would be able to recover the body.
I am not against the GM acquiring the information. I am just saying it should make sense within the story.
This topic has really grown wings, it would seem. The basic question was to kill or not to kill. An as everyone on here has stated, due to their own style of play, its handled in several reoccurring fashions. Most of which don't raise my hackles like one poster in particular did. Character death, PC death, is an unfortunate by product of living the adventurers life. Not all PC's die, but sadly yes sometimes it does happen. Be it through a stupid mistake/action, or good old bad luck.
We as a group, the Gm and the players are out to have a good time. With that being said, To have to ask to remove a character (as the GM) is ridiculous. To not expect the fact that my PC can possible die as I raid the proverbial Dragons lair, is ludicrous.
I can see the story aspect that you referred to. But the game that we're all playing isn't a pre-printed book with a set ending. Our stories as Players and GMs, is more like those books we all saw when we were kids. Those "Choose your own Adventure" books, remember those? The whole if you do this go to this page, and then "this" happens. That's what we are doing here. Unless you were the kid that constantly changed his mind on what page to go to, you'll never know whats going to happen. Just like in life, we can walk outside right now and get hit by of all things space debris, s!*% happens, that's life, be it real or fantasy.
If I were playing a character who was trading blows with an Ogre barbaran at higher levels and it downed my character and then walked away before killing my character? That action would pull me right out of the game. I dont care if I'd been playing that PC for two or three years straight with multiple story threads focused on my character. His story ENDS THERE. Messily. At the hands of a superior foe.Depends on if the ogre knows he didn't kill the character. If his greatclub sends the guy flying into the wall to collapse in an unmoving heap, he might think the job is already done. I don't tell players the status of downed characters without a Heal check except for very obvious deaths. If the ogre has other targets to kill, he won't waste time on a corpse.
This.
I think there needs to be a 'threat of death'... but it shouldn't be guaranteed. There needs to be a balance.
I think the DM's who say that nobody dies ever... are just plain wrong. There's not threat, it isn't fun.
ON the flip side... I've seen DM's here who complain if they go 3 game sessions without SOMEONE dying... and I think they're wrong too.
For ME, my favorite characters NEVER died... though there were some battles and BBEGs that I was TERRIFIED to face... because the odds were so overwhelming, so Powerful... that I knew he was likely to not come back from this...
It was exciting and fun.
During a SS game, I have a rogue who's died twice now... In character, it made sense to try to raise him... so I did. Honestly, Ressurections have cheapened him a bit for me... Coming back from the dead is kind of lame. I had made the decision that if he died again, I'd bring another guy... but were in book 6 now coming to the end... so there's no point in starting over either...
In a 2E game we're running right now, we've had a BLOODBATH... One player is on her 3rd character, I'm on my 2nd... Another guy's on his 2nd... The group only has ONE original character in the group who remembers 'the plot'...
My Paladin was just a 'fun' guy, and I went in expecting him to die... as such it REALLY colored my gaming experience... I didn't have NEAR the attachement to him, since I knew he was temporary...I'm loving my 2nd guy...but I still have a 3rd waiting if bad things happen...
Really, death has been VERY distrating and disruptive of that campaign. It seems we spend nearly as much time 'filling in the new guys' to the mission as we do ADVANCING the mission... and the new guys never have the same 'drive' since they don't have the same grudges as the originals..
To me, I think 2-3 deaths in a party per CAMPAIGN is a good balance. Let the characters grow... let them live... and then give them enough of a threat that they MIGHT die... but as a DM don't TRY to kill them.
In the Ogre example above... I can EASILY see him trading blows with a fighter, and as he drops to the ground, turn to the guy shooting arrows at his back.
If he's got the time, he may 'make sure the fighters dead'... but he's not going to just ignore the ACTIVE threats to do it...
Like in real life, a PC dies due to bad luck or stupidity, at least in my game.
So, if one of the runs up and starts a fight solo, and the rest of the party is somewhere else, and they get killed off... well, no one ever said stupidity pays.
In the same vein, in a game i ran I had a player who slipped up while talking to a guard patrol in the street of a city where the powers that be had a vested interest neutralizing the party. Seeing as that the city-state the party was working for had made it clear that if captured, they would be disavowed and no one would save them, and the rest of the party was expected to complete the mission.
Realizing his mistake after being captured, he attempted to turn in the city-state he worked for,(their diplomats denied knowing him) the the rest of the party in for personal gain/survival.
Needless to say, he was murdered, AND the big bad evil nation was alerted to the plans of the party.
With just a pleading look, and no ill will, he rolled up a new character, and we continued to have fun.
But as a GM, the role is to keep the story going."A" story, not "The" story.
Sometimes the best stories come from failure. And the greatest heroes are the ones who succeeded where others failed, despite the greatest of adversity.
Nearly all epic stories didn't involve some character death.
My quote was taken slightly out of context. It was referring to when the PC who is currently being featured in the plot (which the GM has spent countless hours designing an encounter for, and it will not work without that specific PC) randomly would die due to sheer bad luck (such as their horse being spooked and the PC falls off and just happens to come off the side that the cliff is on or something equally as stupid). If the GM lets the dice fall where they fall, then the rest of the night is shot because the encounter that was planned can't work now. The GM could continue running, but it'll probably not be nearly as good as what was originally planned.
In these situations, I have learned to nix the random encounters. I also don't want to be the GM in any of the "that's no way for a PC to die!" stories.
If the party is killed off, the story ends, short of severe GM fiat on par with bad linear JRPG writing.
If the PCs are interchanged all the time, there is no sense of cohesion and less motivation to work together.
I am wary of killing when I play an AP. For example "Kingmaker", if you kill off most/all the original charter holders, what justification do the players now have to claim rulership? Why would not Restov send someone to (rightly) rule in their stead, and force the PCs to be his gofers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as a GM, the role is to keep the story going."A" story, not "The" story.
Sometimes the best stories come from failure. And the greatest heroes are the ones who succeeded where others failed, despite the greatest of adversity.
Nearly all epic stories didn't involve some character death.
My quote was taken slightly out of context. It was referring to when the PC who is currently being featured in the plot (which the GM has spent countless hours designing an encounter for, and it will not work without that specific PC) randomly would die due to sheer bad luck (such as their horse being spooked and the PC falls off and just happens to come off the side that the cliff is on or something equally as stupid). If the GM lets the dice fall where they fall, then the rest of the night is shot because the encounter that was planned can't work now. The GM could continue running, but it'll probably not be nearly as good as what was originally planned.
In these situations, I have learned to nix the random encounters. I also don't want to be the GM in any of the "that's no way for a PC to die!" stories.
The plot is what happens. If you are making anyone indispensable, you are making them invulnerable, and so you are removing the risk from the game.
The audible gasp when Gandalf "died" was part of the story, despite him seeming indispensable at the time.
I find that the stories are actually better if rather than planning each step you simply create a premise and let your players dictate how it will play out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party is killed off, the story ends, short of severe GM fiat on par with bad linear JRPG writing.
If the PCs are interchanged all the time, there is no sense of cohesion and less motivation to work together.
I am wary of killing when I play an AP. For example "Kingmaker", if you kill off most/all the original charter holders, what justification do the players now have to claim rulership? Why would not Restov send someone to (rightly) rule in their stead, and force the PCs to be his gofers?
A TPK is a problem, and hopefully your players learn risk and understand they need to retreat sometimes.
Part of the problem comes from players who never play in games with actual risk, because they never learn that discretion can be the better part of valor.
My biggest flaw is that I have a very hard time with coming up with stuff on the fly, which is why I overplan. I design each of my campaigns as if it were an episode of a TV show. There's a prologue, several places I need to lead to PCs to, and a conclusion. I also say things like: "If they go to Place A before Place C, then these guys will attack. If they go to Place C first, they overhear about the impending attack at Place A. Any NPCs have several places which would be good for them to come in, so as not to feel either forced or skipped. I try to anticipate how I think the PCs will react, even getting input from players who I can trust to not Metagame.
The best games I've played in is where it was GM story driven, where no one tried to buck the system and blatantly go against the GM's plan for s**t's and giggles. Where the GM kept everything coherent organized. The ones where the players trusted the GM to take them on an incredible adventure, and made characters that would play along as well. The GMs who would incorporate the PCs into the setting, tying them to NCPs and even letting the players create a few NPCs themselves. There have been two GMs like that for me so far: one ran Deadlands, the other ran both a Buffy game and several Old WoD LARPS and Tabletops. Both of them were also 3.5 guys as well, though I never played with them for those games. I try to emulate them in my style, since I enjoyed it so much.
EDIT: I realize this went off on a tangent. It's responding to this:
"I find that the stories are actually better if rather than planning each step you simply create a premise and let your players dictate how it will play out." by ciretose
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nepherti, this article may be of help to you. This article goes hand in hand with it.
Nepherti, this article may be of help to you. This article goes hand in hand with it.
Thank you sosooooooossosooo much!!!
|
How do you guys feel about ambushes, sneak attacks, and counter builds that are pretty likely to take out a character.
I have a group of players in a campaign where an assassins guild is out to kill them, the assassins know a lot about the characters and I am planning to have the assassins ambush the party.
a soft ambush would have 4 assassins do a ranged sneak attack 1 on each member of the party.
but a more realistic ambush would have all 4 assassins focus on the greatest threat, which will likely kill him (or at least put him under 0)
which would you use?
Which method do your players use, when the positions are reversed?
There's your answer.
|
|
Nepherti, this article may be of help to you. This article goes hand in hand with it.Thank you sosooooooossosooo much!!!
I recommend reading the rest of his essays as well. Very good insights, even if you don't agree with them all.
|
Nepherti, this article may be of help to you. This article goes hand in hand with it.
Interestingly, the 'three clue rule' has been a standard screenwriting technique for years and years, but from the essay it doesn't look like that's where the author got it from.
It seems to me people are arguing against always taking the action to kill hepless/unconscious/unmoving PCs and never to kill them. Kobold cultists might after wiping the party might revive the party only to sacrifice it to their masters. Goblins might want to torture the helpless after they force their companions to retreat, contract killers like assassins are pragmatic enough (when the opportunity arises) to make sure that those the knock down stay down. How many Law and Order episodes start with the cops saying something to the effect "Obviously this was a professional hit because after the shots to the leg and stomach they put a double tap of bullets in the heart.
I just thought I'd share what I do in my games...
Generally speaking my games lean more towards "fun" than "serious". However, I mostly break up how attacking foes deal with dropped PC's by what motivates the monster. For example:
Monsters that are primarily driven by hunger w/ low intelligence such as animals or certain types of undead will continue to attack a fallen PC either to drag them off to feed or to feed on them right were they have fallen. Unless of course they are currently threatened.
Mindless monsters such as skeletons or constructs will usually attack within their "programming" otherwise they attack a PC until it stops moving then move on to another moving PC.
Intelligent foes are a little different. Allot of what motivates them is based on alignment. For instance, a Lawful Evil baddy might not attack a fallen PC as it might not be "honorable", a Neutral Evil baddy could attack a fallen PC (or not) based on the situation, a Chaotic Evil baddy might do it just out of spite.
Unless they are wearing regalia, holy outfit, or are covered in Holy insignia - Clerics generally have nothing that points them out as different than other armored adventurers. Intelligent foes would have more reason to focus on active PC's than attacking the fallen. Until of course the Cleric does that first channel. In that case the foes would act based in part on alignment. Evil foes may finish off downed PC's or decide to focus all attacks on the Cleric depending on amount of viciousness/intelligence.
This is basically how I handle it.
It was referring to when the PC who is currently being featured in the plot (which the GM has spent countless hours designing an encounter for, and it will not work without that specific PC) randomly would die due to sheer bad luck (such as their horse being spooked and the PC falls off and just happens to come off the side that the cliff is on or something equally as stupid). If the GM lets the dice fall where they fall, then the rest of the night is shot because the encounter that was planned can't work now. The GM could continue running, but it'll probably not be nearly as good as what was originally planned.
I learned quite the opposite by example.
I recall decades ago playing a campaign where when the party decided not to do the obvious thing by staying at the Inn. The DM calmly and surreptitiously took a completely full legal pad and moved it aside. I happened to notice it, but I don't think any of the other players did.
He ran with it without blinking an eye. The features that were permanent there he had for his world for all time. The time sensitive scenario that he had going on there, well he had it play out without the party. When we came back along that way we stumbled upon the remains of what happened there.
I recall after the session apologizing to him based on that. He just turned to me and said 'you did what your character would do, it was valid, don't worry'.
Many times when playing within that DM's world, there would be little bits that would have a feel of history. You know why? Because they had that history. The feeling was as if we picked a random door to open that there would be something behind it already waiting and with a story. Sometimes that would be true (and it would have a story going back years), other times he would have prepared it that day or made it up on the spot, but that feel lent credibility to everything.
I'll tell you that it was this credibility that made the campaign. It inspired trust in the DM to be fair...
Now THAT is a real game of D&D.
...It was referring to when the PC who is currently being featured in the plot (which the GM has spent countless hours designing an encounter for, and it will not work without that specific PC) randomly would die due to sheer bad luck (such as their horse being spooked and the PC falls off and just happens to come off the side that the cliff is on or something equally as stupid). If the GM lets the dice fall where they fall, then the rest of the night is shot because the encounter that was planned can't work now. The GM could continue running, but it'll probably not be nearly as good as what was originally planned.
I learned quite the opposite by example.
I recall decades ago playing a campaign where when the party decided not to do the obvious thing by staying at the Inn. The DM calmly and surreptitiously took a completely full legal pad and moved it aside. I happened to notice it, but I don't think any of the other players did.
He ran with it without blinking an eye. The features that were permanent there he had for his world for all time. The time sensitive scenario that he had going on there, well he had it play out without the party. When we came back along that way we stumbled upon the remains of what happened there.
I recall after the session apologizing to him based on that. He just turned to me and said 'you did what your character would do, it was valid, don't worry'.
Many times when playing within that DM's world, there would be little bits that would have a feel of history. You know why? Because they had that history. The feeling was as if we picked a random door to open that there would be something behind it already waiting and with a story. Sometimes that would be true (and it would have a story going back years), other times he would have prepared it that day or made it up on the spot, but that feel lent credibility to everything.
I'll tell you that it was this credibility that made the campaign. It inspired
This is how my friend in Tampa DM's and I'm constantly plotting with him online or on the phone. I also had a great campaign with a group of player's (my friend from Tampa was in that group) that inspired me to run a Eberron game like this, with events unfolding all over Khorvaire. Plots within plots. Unfortunately, I've not been that inspired in awhile due to a lack of/ or unstable gaming group. As a DM its a true blessing to run a game like that and have player's who appreciate it.
|
|
I'm running a 12th level game and I am running into an issue where I don't have very many downed players anymore. They pretty much just go straight from alive to dead as in order to make enemies even vaguely challenging they need to hit really hard (even the wizard has almost 100hp). The problem comes in when I roll a critical hit (since improved critical is common now this happens a lot) or one PC ends up eating the brunt attacks for the group for whatever reason, and I end up killing the PC outright.
From a mechanical standpoint this isn't a big deal for the group. The cleric keeps Breath of Life memorized and the occasional Raise Dead is not a major expense at this point. However, it is giving the game something of a videogame feel where death is cheap. Not sure how is fix this with how the game is balanced to play at higher levels as this my first time running a high level game. Any advice?
Nepherti, this article may be of help to you. This article goes hand in hand with it.Interestingly, the 'three clue rule' has been a standard screenwriting technique for years and years, but from the essay it doesn't look like that's where the author got it from.
The "three clue rule" is just another form of the "tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told 'em" rule which is probably the oldest rule in public speaking. I learned very early on that if I want my players to know something, I hit them over the head with it.
I learned quite the opposite by example.I recall decades ago playing a campaign where when the party decided not to do the obvious thing by staying at the Inn. The DM calmly and surreptitiously took a completely full legal pad and moved it aside. I happened to notice it, but I don't think any of the other players did.
He ran with it without blinking an eye. The features that were permanent there he had for his world for all time. The time sensitive scenario that he had going on there, well he had it play out without the party. When we came back along that way we stumbled upon the remains of what happened there.
I recall after the session apologizing to him based on that. He just turned to me and said 'you did what your character would do, it was valid, don't worry'.
Many times when playing within that DM's world, there would be little bits that would have a feel of history. You know why? Because they had that history. The feeling was as if we picked a random door to open that there would be something behind it already waiting and with a story. Sometimes that would be true (and it would have a story going back years), other times he would have prepared it that day or made it up on the spot, but that feel lent credibility to everything.
I'll tell you that it was this credibility that made the campaign. It inspired trust in the DM to be fair all around. Had he imposed a story upon us it would not have been nearly the same experience. And that's saying a lot as he was a wonderful storyteller besides. There were times when I would enjoy having him tell such stories, but the chance for us to make our own was what D&D means to me.
There are lots of ways to run campaigns. The style you describe above sounds very much like my own GM style. My campaign world(s) is a self-contained, internally consistent, dynamically evolving world with its own history. If something of note happens in a campaign, it becomes part of the world's myth and legend. There is a major town along the trade route between two cities that is named after a dwarf PC from the first campaign run in the world. PCs who gain enough renown can become part of the world's vernacular. A monk (named "Void") from one of the early campaigns was so famous that to perform a really spectacular unarmed combat move is referred to as "doing a Void".
When I run a campaign I allow the players to make whatever choices they feel their PCs would make. I give them clues, hints and sometimes even quests to encourage them to do what furthers the story as I want it to go, but if they choose to do something else, that's fine. At any given moment the party could choose to abandon their current task and head on down the road to any city on the continent, and from there they could sail around the world if they wanted to.
My "planning" for an encounter consists of laying out the broad outline of where the background plot is going to head WITHOUT the PCs interaction. Then I will pull together a half-dozen or so encounters, some of which could occur in a variety of places. I identify the consequences to the background plot if the PCs take this, that or the other option and then we just game. If they end up doing none of the above, I wing it. I'm pretty good at winging it. I have run entire encounters totally off-the-cuff and the players never had a clue. In situations like that I just make stuff up. The party went south instead of north and I don't have any encounters set up for the south road? No problem, I have a list of local NPCs for most of the cities and towns, so I can quickly say "Hmm... so they are heading into Goldain's territory, what would Goldain do upon hearing about these adventurers?" Then I can knock together a quick scouting party to challenge or harass the party while figuring out more details of the situation, including tossing together a more complete and challenging encounter which might just provide more clues or hints that could redirect the party.
I have had one time when the party simply decided that they did not want to follow any of my clues, they wanted a totally different sort of campaign. I was putting together a fairly complex political intrigue scenario and they decided they just wanted to dungeon crawl. So that's what they did. The goal was for them to have fun, and they did. I still have the material I put together originally and I can weave that into a future campaign for another group.
I'm running a 12th level game and I am running into an issue where I don't have very many downed players anymore. They pretty much just go straight from alive to dead as in order to make enemies even vaguely challenging they need to hit really hard (even the wizard has almost 100hp). The problem comes in when I roll a critical hit (since improved critical is common now this happens a lot) or one PC ends up eating the brunt attacks for the group for whatever reason, and I end up killing the PC outright.
From a mechanical standpoint this isn't a big deal for the group. The cleric keeps Breath of Life memorized and the occasional Raise Dead is not a major expense at this point. However, it is giving the game something of a videogame feel where death is cheap. Not sure how is fix this with how the game is balanced to play at higher levels as this my first time running a high level game. Any advice?
This post is going longer than I thought it would...
You might consider that players WANT death to be "cheap" as you say. If they wanted permanent death and such, they would simply stop using their tools to avoid it.
It actually sounds like it might be a situation of playstyle conflicts, since it seems that they are spending lots of resources to be very durable (that wizard has loaaaads of hp), and instead of using "normal" enemies that would have to chip away at these formidable defenses, you're souping the enemies up with tonnes of damage, circumventing what the players are trying to achieve (character longevity).
This is how I perceived the problem-solution flow of your example: Players are too tough to fear death (problem for you)-> Enemies do so much damage that it's possible for players to get one-shot (problem for players) -> Players have easy access to raise dead (problem for you)->???
Well, the next step would be to have enemies that trap souls. You can also intervene at any point however, such are removing the enemy ability to one-shot players (maybe make monsters unable to crit, as a way to compensate for their already high damage), or coming to a compromise with your players about their builds.
As a DM, you should also have fun, have you talked to the group about it? I think a good fix might be indeed to talk to players about the level of lethality you want in a game.
But as a GM, the role is to keep the story going."A" story, not "The" story.
Sometimes the best stories come from failure. And the greatest heroes are the ones who succeeded where others failed, despite the greatest of adversity.
Nearly all epic stories didn't involve some character death.
My quote was taken slightly out of context. It was referring to when the PC who is currently being featured in the plot (which the GM has spent countless hours designing an encounter for, and it will not work without that specific PC) randomly would die due to sheer bad luck (such as their horse being spooked and the PC falls off and just happens to come off the side that the cliff is on or something equally as stupid). If the GM lets the dice fall where they fall, then the rest of the night is shot because the encounter that was planned can't work now. The GM could continue running, but it'll probably not be nearly as good as what was originally planned.
In these situations, I have learned to nix the random encounters. I also don't want to be the GM in any of the "that's no way for a PC to die!" stories.
That is why I don't plan plots that absolutely depend on one PC/player.
It ties my hands as a GM, and even looking at it from an out of game perspective what happens if the player gets sick before or during the game, gets mad for _____ and refuses to play, or anything else comes up that would prevent him or his character from being there?I might give a player/pc some planned spotlight time, but it will never be in such as way that the story can't move on without him, or it absolutely depends on his success or cooperation.
I got burned by a similar situation once. I say similar because while the mission was able to be done without the player it was a lot harder on the other players and myself as GM to make it happen.
If the party is killed off, the story ends, short of severe GM fiat on par with bad linear JRPG writing.
If the PCs are interchanged all the time, there is no sense of cohesion and less motivation to work together.
I am wary of killing when I play an AP. For example "Kingmaker", if you kill off most/all the original charter holders, what justification do the players now have to claim rulership? Why would not Restov send someone to (rightly) rule in their stead, and force the PCs to be his gofers?
If the PC's are being changed out a lot then there are normally other issues at hand. The players might need to step up, and/or the GM might need to tune things down, but an occasional death should not destroy a story.
Depending on when the PC's die you can always come up with a reason to add another PC. If the entire party TPK's once they are established I would assume they had a contingency to keep the kingdom running. Maybe other adventurers living in the kingdom are voted into office. Voting some adventurer in as king might be far fetched, but the new party could be hired to take care of thing in the story, while the players still run the kingdom outside of the story. Later on a side quest or series of sidequest could allow them(new PC's) to become the rulers.
|
I am wary of killing when I play an AP. For example "Kingmaker", if you kill off most/all the original charter holders, what justification do the players now have to claim rulership? Why would not Restov send someone to (rightly) rule in their stead, and force the PCs to be his gofers?
Why can't the new PCs be the 'new broom', sent by Restov?
"<whoo-hoosh>The new province is behind schedule.<hoogh> I have been sent to set that right.<hoosh>"
"The people are very demoralised, sir. Wild beasts still inhabit much of the forests, and raiders from over the border have slain the acting regent."
"<heuorgh>Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them.<whoarsh>" (meaningful stare)
|
|
It actually sounds like it might be a situation of playstyle conflicts, since it seems that they are spending lots of resources to be very durable (that wizard has loaaaads of hp), and instead of using "normal" enemies that would have to chip away at these formidable defenses, you're souping the enemies up with tonnes of damage, circumventing what the players are trying to achieve (character longevity).
The wizard has lots of hp because he a 16 Con (The group found +2 belt of con no else wanted and he a dwarf to boot)and toughness. So...not a big use of resources there.
Also, I'm not souping up enemies with tonnes of damage. You don't need to. Take for example a Cloud Giant which is a CR 11 monster characters of that level can easily be expected to fight. That critter has 3 iterative attacks which after power attack do 4d6+30 each. One good round of rolling is all it takes to drop a PC from full to dead. When an average critical hit is 88 points of damage, PCs don't get knocked out, they go straight to dead. For example, in my last session a fiendish tyrannosaur (CR 10) scored a crit on the PC with full hp it previously hit with smite good and did 8d6+80 damage in one shot. Hello Breath of Life!
That said, while individual PCs in my group get dropped, it is pretty rare that an actual TPK looms. I guess this is just part and parcel of high level play I suppose.