EEEEEEEK! and run is a perfectly valid way for a scout to solo the encounter.
Lightbulb, when you said:
I would argue that having the whole game/story contingent on getting through one door is boring.
...you pretty much summed up what I'm talking about.
I don't like adventures that are set up for F + C + W + R and have tasks that can only be accomplished by one of them. That's what I was talking about when I said it's boring to have a party sans rogue get stuck behind a door they can't get through without a DC 30 Disable Device check.
If I was running an adventure path, for example, for a group with no rogue (almost a certainty...as my original post said, I've NEVER GMed a rogue) then the high-DC locked doors will become locked or barred doors that can be broken down, bypassed, or with a low-DC lock but something nasty on the other side that can be overcome by the members of the party.
Just because a GM removes a rogue-centric trap/hazard/obstacle from the adventure doesn't mean it isn't replaced with something else.
I'm talking about tailoring adventures to the party, not nerfing them...
it is one thing to tailoring to the party, another to suddenly live in a world without assassins/traps/locks/doors
Yes traps don't make sense, but neither do dragons or dungeons or anything else in the game. Traps are fun.
it is one thing to tailoring to the party, another to suddenly live in a world without assassins/traps/locks/doors
Well, I don't think anyone's advocating that. I'm certainly not.
Yes traps don't make sense, but neither do dragons or dungeons or anything else in the game. Traps are fun.
Can I amend that to "Traps are fun...for some gaming groups", please?
Traps are like puzzles in computer RPGs, KOTOR and Dragon Age had a few examples of puzzles. The game designers put them in because some people - even a lot of people - love puzzles.
You know what? I hate them. Despise them. Can't stand them. Not because I can't figure them out, but because I get nothing out of doing so and find it a complete waste of time.
My group(s) are of like mind about traps. We don't find them entertaining, or interesting, or fun. We'd rather face an environmental hazard like having to get across a burning pool of lava or somesuch than figure out some kind of mechanical trap. So that's what I give us when I'm either designing or modifying an adventure.
There are still obstacles and hazards, they just don't need a rogue to get past them. So my games aren't missing assassines/traps/locks/doors. They have assassins and locks and doors the same as any other world, and the vast majority of traps are replaced by some other hazard the characters have to get past; the exception being magical traps that require magic to pass, not someone figuring out which string to cut.
I'm at a loss as to how this is "making the game easier" or "gimping" the adventure.
It's just a matter of taste. That's what boldstar prefers, as do I. You don't and that's perfectly fine.
It's just a matter of taste. That's what boldstar prefers, as do I. You don't and that's perfectly fine.
I have no problem at all with that - I'm just taking issue with the declaration that I'm somehow gimping or nerfing adventures by not including them.
The original poster was concerned about not having a rogue in the party for an adventure path adventure (Carrion Crown, IIRC). I was just pointing out that there are ways around it, such as replacing rogue-only hazards with any-character-hazards, rather than tearing one's hair out and trying to force-fit a rogue into a party where nobody particularly wants to play one.
Yes traps don't make sense, but neither do dragons or dungeons or anything else in the game. Traps are fun.Can I amend that to "Traps are fun...for some gaming groups", please?
Traps are like puzzles in computer RPGs, KOTOR and Dragon Age had a few examples of puzzles. The game designers put them in because some people - even a lot of people - love puzzles.
You know what? I hate them. Despise them. Can't stand them. Not because I can't figure them out, but because I get nothing out of doing so and find it a complete waste of time.
My group(s) are of like mind about traps. We don't find them entertaining, or interesting, or fun. We'd rather face an environmental hazard like having to get across a burning pool of lava or somesuch than figure out some kind of mechanical trap. So that's what I give us when I'm either designing or modifying an adventure.
There are still obstacles and hazards, they just don't need a rogue to get past them. So my games aren't missing assassines/traps/locks/doors. They have assassins and locks and doors the same as any other world, and the vast majority of traps are replaced by some other hazard the characters have to get past; the exception being magical traps that require magic to pass, not someone figuring out which string to cut.
I'm at a loss as to how this is "making the game easier" or "gimping" the adventure.
so if you had a party without a healer, would the monsters not do damage to them? The trap or locked door is there--you dont have a rogue--find another way to deal with it. Lightbulb listed a lot of good ways.
Just like a party without a healer has to figure a way to deal with it--they can't just remove any monster that deals damage.
as someone said--no fighter or melee fighter and you come up on some monsters---oops we dont have a fighter--please change all of these to locked doors so our party of rogues can do that encounter instead?
I understand what you are saying, but you take it too far. They dont want a rogue-fine. But the locked doors and traps are still there--deal with them. I get in many groups without healers when I play my melee--we still have to deal with the monsters that deal damage just like a group with a healer would have to, we don't try to talk the GM into removing them.
It's just a matter of taste. That's what boldstar prefers, as do I. You don't and that's perfectly fine.I have no problem at all with that - I'm just taking issue with the declaration that I'm somehow gimping or nerfing adventures by not including them.
The original poster was concerned about not having a rogue in the party for an adventure path adventure (Carrion Crown, IIRC). I was just pointing out that there are ways around it, such as replacing rogue-only hazards with any-character-hazards, rather than tearing one's hair out and trying to force-fit a rogue into a party where nobody particularly wants to play one.
that's just it, you don't have to remove the obstacles. Your party finds a way to deal with them, saws, crowbars, drills, gunpowder, skeleton keys, various spells (shape stone, warp wood etc) mage hand to trip the trap you spotted sometimes--whatever.
mage hand and open/close can spring a lot of traps harmlessly since no one is around.
so if you had a party without a healer, would the monsters not do damage to them? The trap or locked door is there--you dont have a rogue--find another way to deal with it. Lightbulb listed a lot of good ways.
You just hit the nail on the head, actually. If the party had no healer, of course the monsters would do damage to them...but I'd replace a lot of the treasures usable only by a cleric (divine scrolls, for example) with healing potions or wands/staves of healing.
In other words, I would rejig the adventure description to fit the party, which is precisely what I'm suggesting for having no rogue in the group.
Just like a party without a healer has to figure a way to deal with it--they can't just remove any monster that deals damage.
But the monster that deals damage isn't the problem with a group with no healer - it's not having a way to heal the damage that's the problem.
Just as the lack of the rogue isn't the problem with a party with no rogue - it's the lack of the ability to get through obstacles that are specifically designed with the rogue in mind. Just like the level of non-cleric healing "boosts" (for want of a better turn) are placed with the idea that the party has a cleric. If the party doesn't, then you have to make changes.
as someone said--no fighter or melee fighter and you come up on some monsters---oops we dont have a fighter--please change all of these to locked doors so our party of rogues can do that encounter instead?
Well, yes. *looks round* Of course you would. No fighter or melee fighter in the group suggests either a magic-heavy game or a roleplay heavy game. Either way, you'd have far fewer combat encounters.
I would have thought that was a no-brainer, actually...
understand what you are saying, but you take it too far. They dont want a rogue-fine. But the locked doors and traps are still there--deal with them. I get in many groups without healers when I play my melee--we still have to deal with the monsters that deal damage just like a group with a healer would have to, we don't try to talk the GM into removing them.
Well, I don't think tailoring an adventure for my players is taking it too far at all - in fact, I think it's my job as a GM to present a game that's challenging and fun for that group of players, not one that has them groaning with boredom, stuffed full of things they hate and that I know they hate, as if to somehow 'punish' them for nobody taking the rogue class.
that's just it, you don't have to remove the obstacles. Your party finds a way to deal with them, saws, crowbars, drills, gunpowder, skeleton keys, various spells (shape stone, warp wood etc) mage hand to trip the trap you spotted sometimes--whatever.
And if they enjoy that sort of thing, great. I was pointing out, however, that you don't have to have that in your game if you don't wish to. I would hazard a guess that if nobody wants to play a rogue in a group then there's a very good reason for it...like, maybe, that nobody is interested in disarming traps and the like.
So if that's the case, why push the non-rogue characters into taking on obstacles that were specifically designed with a rogue character in mind? Why not swap out the obstacle for something generic, or something more aimed at a character that is in the group?
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run their game here - I'm just pointing out to the OP that there are alternatives to having a rogue in the group; and that there's nothing wrong with changing a published adventure to suit your characters.
but in one--he does punish the players for not having a cleric---ie out of 1200 gp in the treasure pile--200 of that (or the clerics share is required to heal them as if they had a cleric)
isnt it fair to do the same for the rogues share? ie there is some cost for not having a rogue?
he admitted it would cost them treasure if they didnt have a healer. what if no one had wanted to play a healer?
if you are willing to make the exception for rogues--make it for anyone----no one wants to make a melee class and everyone wants to play an archer---so every fight has to be range based etc.
I have no problem with him adjusting. It is his game after all. But he should read his own post---if he would make them convert some of the treasure to cover the lack of another class (ie healer) than the same should apply for rogue?
heck it is his game---if his players say--we don't feel like fighting just give us the treasure and he decides to--that is his choice also.
Why punish the players for playing classes they find fun? The end point of that is GMing for an empty table.
most people dont enjoy playing healers. Yet trust me---almost all GMs don't cut slack because you don't have healing. You find a way to cover that healing---rods, potions etc. You just don't remove anything that would cause healing.
but according to your reasoning--why punish the players for playing classes they find fun---and no one enjoys healers---then you cant damage them since they dont have healing.
he admitted it would cost them treasure if they didnt have a healer. what if no one had wanted to play a healer?
Hakken, if you're going to attack what I say, at least attack what I say - don't just make up what you think I've said.
I said: "but I'd replace a lot of the treasures usable only by a cleric (divine scrolls, for example) with healing potions or wands/staves of healing."
How that translates into "costing the other players treasure" is quite beyond me, since by the premise of the argument, there was no cleric in the party.
Secondly...
but according to your reasoning--why punish the players for playing classes they find fun---and no one enjoys healers---then you cant damage them since they dont have healing
You really need to stop assuming that your experiences reflect everyone's. My wife loves playing clerics and, most recently, a [strike]witch[/strike] oracle (sorry, oracle, not witch...brain fart). My son loves druids. That's two out of my three-to-four regulars who thoroughly enjoy playing healers...but that's by-the-by.
More importantly, you're either not reading or not understanding what I've repeated several times now: you tailor the adventure to the party. It's really pretty simple:
No healer class = replace healer-class-specific treasures with non-healer-specific-class healing treasures such as potions & wands of healing.
No rogue class = replace rogue-specific obstacles with non-rogue-specific obstacles.
I really don't understand the difficulty with this, or why it seems to be triggering such a hostile response. The OP asked for a suggestion of how to overcome the lack of rogue in his/her group. I suggested one way was to remove rogue-specific obstacles and replace them with ones that could be attacked or overcome by what classes were in the group.
And this was met with cries of "gimping the game" or "making it too easy".
Seriously, it's a bit like saying that converting a game aimed at Level 15 characters to suit a Level 10 party is "gimping the game". What a crock! It's tailoring the game to suit the party!
It's beyond me that anyone could not tailor a game to suit their group of players.
Well, yes. *looks round* Of course you would. No fighter or melee fighter in the group suggests either a magic-heavy game or a roleplay heavy game. Either way, you'd have far fewer combat encounters.
I would have thought that was a no-brainer, actually...
Actually no, why would it suggest anything than just that the group happens not to have a warrior in it?
The world won't suddenly be more RP or magic heavy because there is no warrior, nor should it. Bandits and enemy warriors won't start to avoid the group saying "Meh they have no warrior, lets go the other way".
Same with a no-rogue group, just because there is no one capable of properly disabling traps, it should not remove traps and such from the world as reaction.
The very idea of "tailoring" an adventure to the existing party is against my tastes, and I believe also to majority of people here. I never tailored a story to a group unless it happened to be attached to the background of one of the characters or be the very core of the campaign, but even then I only considered that one character what is involved, not what "firepower" it brings with itself.
If I GM, I prepare a world event, a scene what the players may or may not stumble into, not a theater play that fits the tastes of the players. Just because the group doesn't have a rogue or anything else, it won't mean they won't stumble into traps. In my opinion not having some role filled (as rogue or warrior) makes it more fun to find methods to avoid or overcome obstacles usually that role/class has to deal with.
If they find a great bow but there are no archers or rangers in the group, bad luck, that is life, trading and bartering is also part of life, maybe they get lucky and find something for equal price to swap for at a shop or market even so.
The very idea of "tailoring" an adventure to the existing party is against my tastes, and I believe also to majority of people here.
Wow...just...wow. I guess I'm truly the odd man out then. Like I said, "narratavist" here, not "simulationist" or "gamist".
To me, the whole idea of not tailoring an adventure to fit the players is utter anathema.
I mean, seriously, how do you do it? How do you sit down and create an adventure without taking the party's likes, dislikes, strenghts, weaknesses, backgrounds, loves, hates, rivals, friends and adventuring history into account?
I mean, seriously, how do you do it? How do you sit down and create an adventure without taking the party's likes, dislikes, strenghts, weaknesses, backgrounds, loves, hates, rivals, friends and adventuring history into account?
Easy! You run it straight out of a published adventure, as-is.
The very idea of "tailoring" an adventure to the existing party is against my tastes, and I believe also to majority of people here.Wow...just...wow. I guess I'm truly the odd man out then. Like I said, "narratavist" here, not "simulationist" or "gamist".
To me, the whole idea of not tailoring an adventure to fit the players is utter anathema.
I mean, seriously, how do you do it? How do you sit down and create an adventure without taking the party's likes, dislikes, strenghts, weaknesses, backgrounds, loves, hates, rivals, friends and adventuring history into account?
I think you mean narrativist.
I also consider myself that, but to be a narrator you have to have a story to tell, that story is set up on a world built upon simulation, and most of the time I make campaigns and adventures/side quests way before I even go and tell the group "Hey, time for a new party, look up what characters you would like to make, and what classes they would be."
Then I narrate the story on how these player characters join the story and live through it. I also fit the character backgrounds into it but I won't make the whole game depending on the party setup. I also often make character specific side quests in addition to already existing, planned ones, but never mess up the world to make it easier for the team.
There is a war in the neighboring kingdom, it already has a royal family, scheming in the background goes with full power, and opportunists take their chances. This will not suddenly change due to what team there appears.
A group of a barbarian, rogue, druid, wizard would find the very same situation and characters there as a group of a paladin, bard, ranger, and monk. The two groups would most likely deal with the events differently, but the events would not be different themselves. Nor traps and enemies (unless they drag new ones into the mess).
Reading the thread, I assume most people here play and GM the same way.
Easy! You run it straight out of a published adventure, as-is.
I mean, seriously, how do you do it? How do you sit down and create an adventure without taking the party's likes, dislikes, strenghts, weaknesses, backgrounds, loves, hates, rivals, friends and adventuring history into account?
Well, that's why I said "create".
It really is easy: You create a concept, then a setting, then a story in it. Only after that will you have to place the PC-s and their background into this surrounding.
Imagine it as if you run a game in WW2, the world is there, the war is there, historical people already exist in it, and then you place the player group into it, where they will try to survive and influence the events going on.
I know it gets in the way of your being a jerk to your players, but GMs who aren't strawmen can do things like give potions outside the normal loot budget to compensate for the lack of a healer without removing damage from the game.Why punish the players for playing classes they find fun? The end point of that is GMing for an empty table.most people dont enjoy playing healers. Yet trust me---almost all GMs don't cut slack because you don't have healing. You find a way to cover that healing---rods, potions etc. You just don't remove anything that would cause healing.
but according to your reasoning--why punish the players for playing classes they find fun---and no one enjoys healers---then you cant damage them since they dont have healing.
placing EXTRA is one thing---he is---in his own words
No healer class = replace healer-class-specific treasures with non-healer-specific-class healing treasures such as potions & wands of healing.
No rogue class = replace rogue-specific obstacles with non-rogue-specific obstacles.
in one--it costs the party treasure they can sell and buy equipment they can use. In the other-they still get the full share of treasure. Had he said--I slip in extra potions to help my group survive--it is different. but no clerics means they lose treasure--shouldn't it be the same for no rogues?
in that scenario--say they get treasure every time--it was set up for 1200 an adventure for 10 adventures. no cleric costs them the cleric equivalent of 200 and adventure that he replaced and they had to use. with no rogue you still get the 1200 point treasure. end of 10 adventures---6 toons have either 12K to split or 10K to split depending on what class they were missing.
adding in extra things to replace the cleric or rogue and both parties get the same gear at the end---fair. I am not the one being a jerk---he is the one saying--if you dont have this class--it cost you treasure to make up the difference, but if you don't have this class I will just change the adventure.
or take out the roguish treasure of equivalent value from the treasure from the roguelss party
or do what he is doing--but don't penalize the clericless party be decreasing the treasure.
The very idea of "tailoring" an adventure to the existing party is against my tastes, and I believe also to majority of people here.Wow...just...wow. I guess I'm truly the odd man out then. Like I said, "narratavist" here, not "simulationist" or "gamist".
To me, the whole idea of not tailoring an adventure to fit the players is utter anathema.
I mean, seriously, how do you do it? How do you sit down and create an adventure without taking the party's likes, dislikes, strenghts, weaknesses, backgrounds, loves, hates, rivals, friends and adventuring history into account?
I see what you are saying. but since there is no rogue, no one in their hometown would ever lock a door? surely from a roleplay stance, they should realize--hmmm we have a weakness, if we do come across it, how do we deal with it. You shouldn't hammer that weakness and make it unfun--but to totally coddle it?
we are running jade regent--no rogue---skeleton key has been a tremendou asset as has an adamantium drill. some things we can't unlock. then some of those we saw or break down--some we can't. oh well---our party has other strengths.
once again--your group--play it how you want. that goes for OP also. Your suggestion was valid. It is just my opinion as well as some others is 'part of the fun is dealing with your weakness and figuring a way around it" Doesn't make yours any less valid to you.
lol playing without a healer---it is sometimes fun to see the ideas we come up with not to get hurt--more fun than the actual playing. or having your characters slowly widdled down--none dead but on a time crunch and having to take on BBEG with your two tanks both down to quarter hps--so the out of spells sorcerer stepping up and taking the first big blow so both tanks can remain up. we all lived--only two standing at end though.
I think you mean narrativist.
Actually, that's what I said, but I think we both mean "narrativist" :)
I also consider myself that, but to be a narrator you have to have a story to tell, that story is set up on a world built upon simulation, and most of the time I make campaigns and adventures/side quests way before I even go and tell the group "Hey, time for a new party, look up what characters you would like to make, and what classes they would be."
Well, that's not really narrativist in the GNS Game Theory sense. In that "narrativist" stories are virtually impossible to plan out in advance, because the GM responds to the players as much as vice-versa. My game worlds are loosely defined, the characters go in with a bit of back-story and the rest is either made up on the fly or only loosely planned out ahead of time. A few maps, a few NPCs, etc.
All the rest depends on the players' actions.
Then I narrate the story on how these player characters join the story and live through it. I also fit the character backgrounds into it but I won't make the whole game depending on the party setup. I also often make character specific side quests in addition to already existing, planned ones, but never mess up the world to make it easier for the team.
Yeah, you guys have to get away from the idea that tailoring adventures to fit the party is "messing up" the world to "make it easier". That's like saying not having lightsabres in Golarion is "messing up" the Star Wars universe. The two are unrelated.
My Golarion is my Golarion. It's no more "messed up" than yours. It is internally consistent and fits our group's gaming style. For example, we all hate gunpowder weapons in our fantasy, so there are none. Alkenstar isn't a hotbed of engineering, it's a very medieval place where no magic means it closely resembled England, circa 1200 CE.
It's different from canon...but so what? It's not "messed up". It's not "easier".
There is a war in the neighboring kingdom, it already has a royal family, scheming in the background goes with full power, and opportunists take their chances. This will not suddenly change due to what team there appears.
Well, it may well in my Golarion. Why? Because I don't give a damn about "other teams", since this particular group are the only "team" in this world. They are the main characters, so yes the world most certainly does revolve around them, in the same way Rowling's world revolved around Harry, Ron and Hermione, or Feist's Midkemia revolved around Pug, Tomas and Arutha.
A group of a barbarian, rogue, druid, wizard would find the very same situation and characters there as a group of a paladin, bard, ranger, and monk. The two groups would most likely deal with the events differently, but the events would not be different themselves. Nor traps and enemies (unless they drag new ones into the mess).
Mine would be similar, but not the same. The B + R + D + W might find a group of bad guys including a Lvl 10 Wizard. The P + B + R + M might find something similar, but instead of a Lvl 10 Wizard, they might find a CL 9 demon, or other critter more fun for the individual characters.
There's no science to it - it's a gut decision I make based on knowing the characters and what the players enjoy, which is collaborative storytelling.
My rule is simple: if it enhances the fun and the storytelling it's in. If it annoys people, it's out.
My players love dealing with environmental hazards and the like, but hate things like mechanical traps. So if you were playing, and I knew you liked traps, I'd leave in that diabolically nasty CR 9 trap for your rogue to get past. But in my "default" group, I'd set up a pair of CR 8 challenges - a rope bridge to be crossed with a series of Climb checks and Reflex saves, in the midst of a howling snowstorm requiring Perception checks to see where they're going and Fortitude saves to avoid their hands freezing up on the ropes.
Reading the thread, I assume most people here play and GM the same way.
Fine. I have no problem with that. But when the OP asked for suggestions in dealing with "Scenario A", I assumed he would want a variety of suggestions, not the same one repeated twenty times...
"Your players are telling you, by their build choices, what kind of game they want to play. "
I never got any complains, and I always thought the players tell me by their build choices what kind of characters they want to play, not what kind of game. Ah yes, and also they are usually direct and tell me what they want to be and how they want to play it.
"Fine. I have no problem with that. But when the OP asked for suggestions in dealing with "Scenario A", I assumed he would want a variety of suggestions, not the same one repeated twenty times... "
You asked why you got some "hostile" replies and strange reactions after you offered advice, I gave you a possible answer. This was nothing more than that.
edit: btw, I don't even like Golarion, I play a few games in it but huge majority is in homebrew or other settings, I also use different settings when I GM. I meant "messing up" in a different way. As in: I do not rewrite a book depending on who I tell the story written in it to. That's all.
I see what you are saying. but since there is no rogue, no one in their hometown would ever lock a door?
Where on Earth did you get that from what I've said??
There are more ways of getting into somewhere than picking a lock. They could break down the door. They could smash a window. They could use their diplomacy skills and a little gold to convinve a local urchin to get in for them an open the door from the inside.
In other words, any character class could get through a locked door.
We were (I thought) discussing rogue-specific stuff, which is why I've repeatedly talked about avoiding replacing traps with environmental hazards.
surely from a roleplay stance, they should realize--hmmm we have a weakness, if we do come across it, how do we deal with it. You shouldn't hammer that weakness and make it unfun--but to totally coddle it?
It's not a weakness that nobody in my group likes rogues or traps. It's a preference. So what would you suggest I do? Go out of my way to piss off my players and put in stuff I know they hate?
Or put in challenges that are exactly as difficult but which I know the players enjoy?
Which is harder to overcome? A CL 5 trap, or a CL 5 environmental hazard?
we are running jade regent--no rogue---skeleton key has been a tremendou asset as has an adamantium drill. some things we can't unlock. then some of those we saw or break down--some we can't. oh well---our party has other strengths.
Exactly...so a good GM allows the players to play to those strengths. There's not a lot of fun in being tossed into a slick-walled pit when nobody can fly, so why on Earth would you do it? Why, why, why would you go out of your way to put players into a situation where only the one class they don't have could get them out of it?
You (and others) seem to be under the impression that I'm saying remove the obstacles and leave it at that. Go back and re-read what I've written - extensively - about replacing the obstacles.
Not a CL 5 trap, but a CL 5 hazard with a waterfall and slippery rocks and a nasty 4d6 hit point landing at the bottom, for example...how on Earth is this "gimping" the adventure?
once again--your group--play it how you want. that goes for OP also. Your suggestion was valid. It is just my opinion as well as some others is 'part of the fun is dealing with your weakness and figuring a way around it" Doesn't make yours any less valid to you.
Hey, I'm all for that. But that's within the game. If a character is frightened of demons, you can bet your life I'll throw them at him! But if a player is frightened of spiders (as is the case with my son), no, I won't throw them at him. I'll use something else.
And I have a group who hates traps. I hate traps. So I replace them with something else, just as challenging, but which 1) is a lot more fun for our group, and 2) doesn't require a particular character class (which they don't have) to defeat.
lol playing without a healer---it is sometimes fun to see the ideas we come up with not to get hurt--more fun than the actual playing. or having your characters slowly widdled down--none dead but on a time crunch and having to take on BBEG with your two tanks both down to quarter hps--so the out of spells sorcerer stepping up and taking the first big blow so both tanks can remain up. we all lived--only two standing at end though.
We've had some great one-shot games (and have discussed going further, but never got around to it) with absolutely no magic. I ran a game quite a few years ago under 3.0 rules that was set in medieval England (oh...my brain still hurts from the Monty Python & The Holy Grail jokes...). Clerics were just commoners with the blessing of the Church. Fighters were normal. Paladins were fighters with the blessing of the Church :). Sorcerers, wizards, and the like were just Experts living away from the main-stream who knew a little about herbal remedies and the like, and risked execution if they ventured too close to town or a priory. No healing. No magic.
Great, great fun! :)
"Where on Earth did you get that from what I've said?? "
Sorry, but it sure sounded like that, I assume most uproar came due to that.
As in: I do not rewrite a book depending on who I tell the story written in it to. That's all.
Well, I don't consider that I'm telling a story to my players. To me, it's a collaborative effort to tell a story in which their characters are the protagonists.
I'm not reading Lord of the Rings to them - they're playing Lord of the Rings as Frodo and Aragorn and Gandalf.
That's what I mean by it being quite impossible to "mess up" the world for the players. The world is yours - especially if you, as you say you do, create your own worlds - so it can't be messed up. Whatever changes you make - whether for your own satisfaction or to accomodate something to do with the story or to engage your players - are inherently as much a part of the world as anything else.
Tolkien didn't "mess up" Middle Earth when he introduced the Balrog. He invented it and tossed it at the characters for a specific reason. If my players go to Atticus Ravine and discover the Caves of Desolation there (when I'd actually placed the Caves of Desolation in the Hills of Skulls) then my world isn't "messed up". I just shifted something because the players went somewhere unexpected...
interesting perspective but from my point of view it is different:
The Balrog was already there, it was not thrown against Gandalf and the others just because they were the team that they were. Any other group could have also met it there and then. It wouldn't have been replaced by an assassin or pixie if others would have gone there. Also, I wouldn't allow the preset main characters like Frodo or Aragorn be played, they would either be replaced by new characters or would be NPC-s.
When I tell a story it is a story of an event or a series of events, in which yes, the player characters are more often than not the protagonists, but I am no Varric Tethras to tell their tale larger than life. I don't move/teleport locations around to force the characters to an important place either, that is too railroaded for my tastes.
Anyway, regarding railroads, i think we derailed a bit from the reason for this thread.
"Where on Earth did you get that from what I've said?? "
Sorry, but it sure sounded like that, I assume most uproar came due to that.
Well, if that's the case, I apologise for not being clear enough.
So let me absolutely, 100% crystal clear here:
I am not advocating the "gimping" of adventures.
What I am saying is that a good GM should look at his/her players/characters and adjust the adventure to suit the group. If a group doesn't like traps, don't include traps. Instead, include obstacles they do enjoy.
My intent was to say that you can remove rogue-specific obstacles from an adventure and replace them with generic obstacles. Doors can be broken down or bypassed without a rogue - hence my unconcern about "normal" doors (such as would be found in someone's hometown). My only caveat to this would be ridiculously high-DC doors that could only be opened by a high-level rogue...there's simply no reason to keep them in an adventure with no rogue; put something else in there instead. I think I specifically used an example of a DC 30 Disable Device-check door.
That's not your typical locked front homestead door...and it can easily be removed and replaced with something else; an environmental hazard, an extra monster, something requiring a magical or divine solution, a haunt - anything but the one thing the party either hates, or simply isn't equipped (by the makeup of the party) to take on.
When the DM makes all the choices for players,
then you end up with a DM playing with himself,
with some friends over to watch.
That is what must be avoided. Changing the setting and even the encounters based on what the group is, moving places around to enforce that the players go to those, these are all bad choices in my opinion. Daronil also removed traps from the world basically because he doesn't like them, sure it may be the other players don't like them either, but no one really loves traps, or puzzles, they are there to be a challenge, and not just to rogues.
My intent was to say that you can remove rogue-specific obstacles from an adventure and replace them with generic obstacles. Doors can be broken down or bypassed without a rogue - hence my unconcern about "normal" doors (such as would be found in someone's hometown). My only caveat to this would be ridiculously high-DC doors that could only be opened by a high-level rogue...there's simply no reason to keep them in an adventure with no rogue; put something else in there instead. I think I specifically used an example of a DC 30 Disable Device-check door.
And? You don't have to remove that door just because there is no rogue, let the players come up with something else than unlocking it, maybe make the door rot away, or blow a hole near it in the wall to go past it. The only thing that is "rogue-specific" in my opinion is if for some reason a device HAS to be disabled, or if an enemy HAS to be "sneak-stabbed" upon.
EDIT: derailing, right, sorry.
The Balrog was already there, it was not thrown against Gandalf and the others just because they were the team that they were.
Of course it was! The Fellowship was the team. It was the only team. The entire story was about the team. Hell, the book was named after them!
Any other group could have also met it there and then.
No it couldn't, because Tolkien was writing about the Fellowship of the Ring, not the Company of the Fiery Torch. Just as in your games, your gaming group are the only group...unless you're an absolutely astonishing multi-tasker, I can't imagine you'd be running two different groups through the same adventure simultaneously...as in, at the same game table.
It wouldn't have been replaced by an assassin or pixie if others would have gone there.
Well, there was no need, because Tolkien had perfectly tailored his story to the capabilities of his characters. That's actually my point...
Also, I wouldn't allow the preset main characters like Frodo or Aragorn be played, they would either be replaced by new characters or would be NPC-s.
Well, I was talking about the story being the game. Think of "DM of the Rings". Imagine that The Lord of the Rings didn't exist, and you were running a group of PCs through your own world, called Middle-Earth. Your group are Frodo and Sam and Aragorn and Gandalf[/i].
When I tell a story it is a story of an event or a series of events, in which yes, the player characters are more often than not the protagonists, but I am no Varric Tethras to tell their tale larger than life.
Then we have a fundamental disconnect. In my games, the characters are by virtue of their existence the protagonists - absolutely, incontravertibly - and they are living the bards' tales.
I don't move/teleport locations around to force the characters to an important place either, that is too railroaded for my tastes.
Well, the alteranative is that for Friday night's adventure, the players wander around an empty valley and then go home. Or else, I simply shift the adventure location to where they've gone. How is that railroading? I'm not forcing them to do anything...unless you count actually giving them a Friday night's adventure as forcing them into something...
Anyway, regarding railroads, i think we derailed a bit from the reason for this thread.
You're probably right...
I think I specifically used an example of a DC 30 Disable Device-check door.
wooot--off topic--but we got one of those in the jade regent AP--with no rogue. AND--we opened it. skeleton key and nat 20. took us about 5 mintues to quit high fiving the guy who rolled the 20. Chest with 2 magic items.
anyway--your campaign--so long as you and your players are having fun more power to you. Like Merlaine---I took it as you removed anything rogue like from the campaign.
removing dc 30+ items with no way around is one thing. a bunch of fighters who the highest diplomacy is 3 and you need a dc 40 diplomacy to continue the mission--sure--as a gm add something else.
but leaving some things in they can work around is cool. SOmetimes defeating your weakness is the most fun---when you have no chance to defeat your weakness (as it sounds like you are saying) then yeah I can see your point.
Not all traps have same purpose.
Think of trap that is easy for heroes to notice but will certainly kill them. It is beyond even a heroic rogue's skill. That trap not actually a "danger". It is a "redirect and resource". Heroes go another way. Maybe never come back. Maybe lure golem into that trap later.
If no rogue, more traps be "redirect and resource". Not necessarily a bad thing. GM be careful.
I do appologize. I did mean that traps are fun for me and mine. Of course you should run your game to your players interests.
100-lb log named "Chuck" with handholds that an Unseen Servant drags around.