I know, I know, this is generally frowned upon and the AP is written to be balanced for a party of 4 with a 15pt buy. Well, I had them use the 24d6 dice pool method, and as such, their stats average to be about the same, maybe a little higher. I had them make their characters before I really knew what I was doing, and now I obviously can't take their ability scores back. We've run one session so far, making it up to
I don't have the sheets in front of me but I'm guessing their average level 1 ability score is closer to 12 or 13 than 10. At least one player has 2 18's, but other than that none of the scores seem too high.
Just curious what I can do to offset this error in judgment seeing as I can't just revoke or reduce their ability scores at this point.
I know, I know, this is generally frowned upon and the AP is written to be balanced for a party of 4 with a 15pt buy. Well, I had them use the 24d6 dice pool method, and as such, their stats average to be about the same, maybe a little higher. I had them make their characters before I really knew what I was doing, and now I obviously can't take their ability scores back. We've run one session so far, making it up to
** spoiler omitted **
I don't have the sheets in front of me but I'm guessing their average level 1 ability score is closer to 12 or 13 than 10. At least one player has 2 18's, but other than that none of the scores seem too high.
Just curious what I can do to offset this error in judgment seeing as I can't just revoke or reduce their ability scores at this point.
Nothing that I can really see unless you restrict gear a little bit down the road. In the meantime, feel free to throw in an extra goblin or three whenever appropriate (even coming in waves) to make sure the PC's are being challenged enough. I had to do that even without boosted attributes.
And learn your lesson! Rolling for attributes never seems to work out very well.
Just roll with it. The guy with the 18s is either going to become the meatshield or the run-away-to-fight-another-day guy. When they get to Thistletop those 18s are not going to matter to a couple of doggies and by the time they get to the Skinsaw Murders somebody is going to need an 18 just to live.
Well after recently running the first two books I can tell you that this AP seems to be a bit of a meatgrinder so you should be fine. Run as is for the first adventure and see how it goes, if you find battles are two easy just add one or two more mooks to fights or give the boss enemys the advanced template.
It's not the stats. It's the situations. Be sure to use environment to its full effect. For instance, in Thistletop space is at a premium so characters will have problems building a proper battle line and the like. Characters cannot charge if there is difficult terrain, for instance. So have the goblins use difficult terrain against them.
As for the player with two 18s? It depends on what those 18s are in and the player's class (and if they are 18s due to racial modifiers or higher than 18 as a result). A wizard with a pair of 18s is much less of a threat than a Barbarian with an 18 Strength and 18 Dexterity!
Why roll for stats if your not going to roll properly?
3d6 straight down the line.
Your method will be the end of your whole gaming group I predict, maybe you and your friends exodus from gaming all together! You tamper with forces you do not understand!
Jeez, thanks for the vote of confidence... I'm sure my friends will stop gaming with me because of this... right. As for rolling "properly," there are several methods presented in the CRB to roll for stats, and I chose the one which I thought would give my players the most freedom of choice.
As for the player with two 18s? It depends on what those 18s are in and the player's class (and if they are 18s due to racial modifiers or higher than 18 as a result). A wizard with a pair of 18s is much less of a threat than a Barbarian with an 18 Strength and 18 Dexterity!
Ah, I see. Well the player with two 18's is playing a witch, who ended up with 18 INT and 18 CHA, which really isn't too much of a problem I suppose.
The paladin, on the other hand, has 17 STR, 18 DEX, and 14 CON and WIS... he got lucky with his rolls. He IS the meatshield of the group, and has performed fairly well in that capacity thus far. A good thing too, because two of the PCs are squishy (gnome sorc and half-elf witch) and one is a well-rounded cleric who has terrible dice luck.
Never, never roll for stats. They should take that right out of the CRB because all it does is unbalance games everywhere, at the heart of every unbalanced game is stats that are too high.
People who say the stats don't matter, don't know what they are speaking of, or are unexperienced, or run crazy super games. If you encounter problems in your game I guarentee you it will be because of the stats and you will understand, just keep an eye on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players rolled and with one exception the results are no problem. They're all good but not too good. I'm adjusting via some modification to the magic items: essentially reducing the power / availability of items a bit so that their magic items are a bit behind the curve. Since I like a low-magic feel anyway I'm perfectly happy with it. Plus it makes the items they do get feel more valuable.
Personally I'm all for seriously nerfing magic items and spell availability in Pathfinder. Part of the outcry against higher stats is the fact magic makes it so easy to beef stats up anyway. If magic items weren't so prolific and easy to make and/or buy, then this wouldn't be a problem, would it.
There is another solution you can do: increase the stats of major antagonists to compensate. (The Advanced Template does this as well, though I ca't recall if it has other boosts as well.)
I know, I know, this is generally frowned upon and the AP is written to be balanced for a party of 4 with a 15pt buy. Well, I had them use the 24d6 dice pool method, and as such, their stats average to be about the same, maybe a little higher. I had them make their characters before I really knew what I was doing, and now I obviously can't take their ability scores back. We've run one session so far, making it up to
** spoiler omitted **
I don't have the sheets in front of me but I'm guessing their average level 1 ability score is closer to 12 or 13 than 10. At least one player has 2 18's, but other than that none of the scores seem too high.
Just curious what I can do to offset this error in judgment seeing as I can't just revoke or reduce their ability scores at this point.
Why is it I very often see PC's who 'got lucky' with their rolls, but I never, ever see a character being played who got unlucky?
That's why we don't roll.
Wiggz, I did. I upped her Strength from 7 to 9, and her Intelligence from 8 to 10. After several games and noticing that the player wasn't enjoying herself as much as the higher-statted players? I gave her several more points to just put into stats within reason (and she was conservative with those points).
The next time I do Runelords I will offer two choices - 4d6, drop the lowest 6 and no rerolls no matter what, or 20-point build. And if the 4d6 method is truly horrific then a 15-point build to replace it.
Man, so much hate for dice stats. Me, I find rolled abilities more of an adventure. A good powergamer will be able to make cheese out of whatever the dice give you, be it gross goat milk or delicious...normal milk. Okay, that metaphor was a bad idea. Point is, there's no harm in a bit of imbalance. Keeps things interesting!
If you find your group is steamrolling encounters, just add on a goblin or two. Powerful PCs are probably one of the easiest problems to solve, so it amazes me people are so frustrated at 4d6.
Roll with it! {No pun intended}
24d6 Dice pool is one of my favorite methods - stats shouldn't be too high in general (though perhaps lop-sided on characters and in the party), but that's a choice you gave them.
If you're really concerned - ask them if they were happy with the method. If the majority say no, offer 15 point-buy as an option. Or +5 point-buy from what they have, to a max of 15 point-buy.
There's a very handy guide out there on encounter building:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxiv?GMs-Guide-to-Creating-Challenging-Encount ers
In it the guide states that for a four-man group, an encounter that is equal to their challenge is Party Level + 4 - as such, the early Goblin attacks are not a huge threat. Seeing your group is probably a higher-than-25-point-build (both of my groups are in this category), you could also increase the CR by +1 to make it more equal.
So really, what you'll want to do is either give one of the enemy the Advanced Template, or add class levels to critters. For instance: switch the Goblin Warriors for Goblin Fighters and give them the Throw Anything feat (don't forget to give them max hit points in that case). And then be prepared to have the goblins do stupid things if they end up overpowering your group.
(I have found it very handy to run a trial combat before the game in order to see if a revised enemy is too powerful for the group. Better to find out before than when you're looking a Total Party Kill in the eyes.)
|
Jeez, thanks for the vote of confidence... I'm sure my friends will stop gaming with me because of this... right. As for rolling "properly," there are several methods presented in the CRB to roll for stats, and I chose the one which I thought would give my players the most freedom of choice.
Awwww. If the intended target doesn't get a joke then it wasn't funny. :(
Jokes rarely are. I overcome this by laughing at everything, no matter how poor taste it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And from the other side of the room...I severely dislike the "point buy"*. We did the 4d6/drop 1, I am playing a highly sub optimal monk in it (best I could squeeze out of the wisdom was a 10...) and have no problem with it.
Led to some interesting choices on how to play it, has forced somewhat of a modification to the character I envisioned, and causes me to struggle in some encounters...and I enjoy it so much more than I would have enjoyed a crippling 15 point buy type thing where I never would have had even the remotest chance to build the character I envisioned.
For our particular group (which is not the OP's) the 4d6/drop lowest was the correct choice. Doesn't mean it would be for others.
And our gm has done a great job of balancing the encounters where they have all been challenging without being unovercomable.
Just thought I would put one out there on behalf of the OP..I like the way he did it and would hate to see an overall rule change to remove those options which some of us find vastly more fun than the point buys
(*and yes, I actually considered playing in a local PFS game to get some more experience until I found it was a point buy. believe it or not, that killed my interest entirely)
Why is it I very often see PC's who 'got lucky' with their rolls, but I never, ever see a character being played who got unlucky?
That's why we don't roll.
Because ancedotal evidence makes it true: my first character for the most recent running of RoTL rolled terrible stats. They were so bad that the DM even said I could just straight up do a point buy if I wanted instead, but I stuck with them because it fit the concept of a character (a guy pretending to be Paladin so a woman would marry him).
But yeah, you are right. When somebody shows up with 3 18's it is kind of hard not to call shenanigans.
You say that. But I saw a legitimately-rolled character that would be a 54-point build. Not a single stat was above a 17 (and only one stat was a 17). And she put her +2 for being human? Into a 15 so she'd have two 17s. Admittedly, I had her reroll after her first character had three stats below 10 and two more around a 12... but that was because I'd noticed a pattern in the dice. Two of them rolled 2s. Every single time. Obviously they'd been in the tumbler too long and had worn unevenly.
That's something else to consider: not all dice are created equal. Yes, I can hear the cries now of "that's another reason why you need to use a point-method!" but really... that works for all dice. Some d20s roll high because of the polishing method. Some d12s roll poorly. And on down the line. But you can buy dice that are of better quality to ensure they roll much more randomly. And you can put down felt to ensure dice don't just slide on the table.
Don't forget: the game is supposed to be FUN. Forcing players to do exponential mathematics to determine stats is NOT fun. Even just printing out the chart and having them add things up? No. Not fun. Now you're forcing the player to try and determine which stats to create. It's much easier to roll dice and accept what the rolls gave you. That's why D&D has used dice for stats for so long: it's EASIER.
Well, thanks for all the input. I did end up working with each of my players to get them each to a viable 15 pt build, although it took some coercing. Once I explained it was all in the name of balance and that the game would be more exciting as a result, they went with it.
For homebrew campaigns and such in the future, I'll probably stick with rolling (it IS more fun) but since this is my first AP, and I'm still just a beginner GM, I'd like to keep everything as close to 'by the book' as possible.
Well, it's likely easier that way. I know I'm far too fond of meddling with encounters to just keep things "by the book" which is why my Reign of Winter campaign has a goblin riding a steampunk/gear-driven suit of human-sized full plate armor and is about to go Mythic, while my Runelords game is one level higher (I started them out at 2nd level and adjusted everything upward to compensate) and have already sicced mythic foes on them (and will do so again). ^^
My problem with rolling stats has been that I have a fairly large group (6 players) and when we roll, someone comes up with Mr. Perfect (and when I say someone, I mean the same player every time so far, regardless of who's dice he's used), while someone else gets, at best, Joe Average. Usually 2-3 people are 'alright' at their roles, and the other 2-3 become what 'Mr. Perfect' termed 'Cheerleaders' (ie they aren't there to play, they're there to cheer as the team/Mr. Perfect smash into the end zone of victory.) If the foe challenges Mr. Perfect, they're there to...well, die. And while Mr. Perfect may have loved that game/character, Joe Average hated it, and the Cheerleaders were, at best, bored, frustrated and annoyed.
That's why I like a point-buy even playing field to start. Luck already has enough of a role (roll?) in the game, without it kneecapping you right at the start.
Sounds like ‘Mr. Perfect’ is a power-gamer who knows dice-manipulation techniques, tempestblindam. Maybe you should have someone else roll his dice for him during character generation — call it a learning experience for him, so the other members of the party can get their moments in the spotlight. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you force him to roll dice using a dice cup. Or you find a couple dice that you know roll poorly (like the two d6s I know a player has that keep rolling 2s) and give him those.
That said, a large group is probably better suited for a point-build system. Yes, I enjoy letting players roll for stats and see no problem with it. I'm still going to switch to point-builds in the future... I just hate hearing people gloat and dictate "point-builds are the only way to do things!" and "the APs should only be done by point-builds" or even "Paizo should eliminate rolled stats entirely and only allow point builds."
I have two methods when I GM: 4d6, drop the lowest, place as you desire.
As a player, this is my favorite method, so I also prefer it as a GM.
I *have* had a problem with "Mr. Perfect and the Cheerleading Squad" in another game, so we went stat array: 15,14,13,12,10,8, with an additional 3 points that can be added to any stat(s). It allows for niche protection, though I have to laugh at how many players just *will not* live with having an 8 attribute.
The current game I'm in, it's 4d6, re-roll *once* any 1 or 2's, drop the lowest, and place as desired. IIRC, I got a 17,16,15,14,11,10, which I thought was pretty awesome for my wizard (going EK), till I saw everyone else's stats (the Ranger had nothing less than a 15).
But stats don't make the character; everyone else has died at the table (some are on their 3rd characters), while my wizard...is getting a reputation of a "party-killer", according to the other PC's!
Some people are just jealous... ;P
Yea, pretty scary Eltargrim. I just tried it for fun....had a 17, 17, 17, 16, 15, 14
Alright; two comments:
To the nature of the OP: I don't worry about characters with high stats or characters with high magic items; that just means I get to throw tougher encounters at them.
Also,
Since the conversation has started to shift towards stat rolling methods, I was thinking of a few new ways to roll stats.
It has become a running joke at our gaming table that I always roll the worst stats. Usually I end up taking the elite array instead of the stats I roll. While I don't gripe about it, I still end up feeling like I get the short-end. So I started thinking of ways to roll that are group-focused and get people working together before the actual game even starts proper. My two ideas:
Group method 1:
- Players roll stats using whatever method the GM sets.
- Players then reverse-calculate what the point buy cost would be of their current stats.
- The player with the highest point buy total "sets the bar" for the other players, and they can increase their rolled stats until they have an equal point buy total as the person who set the bar.
*this method avoids stat disparity and the attitudes of the players towards each other. "Mr. Perfects" can't feel smug towards their teammates because their stats are just as viable and they don't have a "Cheerleader Squad." "Cheerleaders" don't envy "Mr. Perfect," they actually are grateful he set the bar. I suppose the only character who comes out the worst off would be the person who set the bar, because they don't get to adjust anything. I'm hoping that the fact that *THEY* were the person who set the bar and the adulation of the other players makes up for that.
Group method 2: (Disclaimer: still an idea in the making, not fully fleshed out yet)
- Players roll stats using whatever method the GM sets.
- Those stats all get pooled into the middle of the table for all to see.
- Using a system I haven't fully decided yet, stats are then drafted by all the players.
*I haven't completely decided the best way to distribute all the numbers yet, but this method helps to equalize the stats on each character sheet, and players should come out with a similar point-buy-equivalency.
I'm strongly leaning toward this for a second Runelords game I hope to run for two of my friends: 25-point builds, treasure reduced by 66%, and permanent magic items reduced by 90%. Certain items such as the tiny returning dagger, Nualia's sword, and the ring of shielding, and of course any Thassilonian-specific items will remain, but most magic items WILL be used and won't be for sale. And no Crafting Feats, outside of potions and scrolls.
To compensate for only having two players, I'll also be instituting Mythic rules (with the Runewell). That should allow them to deal with critters that need magic to hit and the like.
I'm strongly leaning toward this for a second Runelords game I hope to run for two of my friends: 25-point builds, treasure reduced by 66%, and permanent magic items reduced by 90%. Certain items such as the tiny returning dagger, Nualia's sword, and the ring of shielding, and of course any Thassilonian-specific items will remain, but most magic items WILL be used and won't be for sale. And no Crafting Feats, outside of potions and scrolls.
To compensate for only having two players, I'll also be instituting Mythic rules (with the Runewell). That should allow them to deal with critters that need magic to hit and the like.
(*choking sound*) Rise of the Runelords is already magic-poor with not many stops on the railroad train once you get into Hook Hill Massacre, and you want to LOWER the treasure and magic items?
The only way I'm playing is my "you wake up in a dungeon" sorcerer with Still Spell, Silent Spell, etc, and that's because you probably won't allow a Dreamscarred Press psionic. So all your PCs have to be self-sufficient McGyvers to survive past level 3...
If it wasn't for the GM (me) arranging a GMPC with Teleport to get the party around in a few levels, they would be stuck on the Stroval Plains for months.
I'm a firm believer in low-magic worlds. There isn't need for lots of magic items. And having magic shops where items are easily sold diminishes the impact of magic items. They should be rare, mystifying, and wondrous.
Too much magic makes a game overpowered. People claim it's the stats. It's not. It's the magic. It's being able to walk around with headbands adding +6 to all mental stats and belts with +6 to all physical stats because you had enough gold to enchant or purchase these items, and uber-cloaks and armor.
In my day and age, we had a term for high-magic campaigns that got quickly overpowered: Monty Haul. And for all the people who claim 15-point builds will handwave away all these problems? I say "try reducing the magic by a bit and see just how potent those stats remain."
Besides. If things get too tough? I can always have one or two extra magic items show up. If things get too easy, I can't just eliminate magic items without the players feeling like I'm punishing them.
100% agree with you Tangent. Low-magic all the way.
I make sure (almost) all the magic items introduced have descriptions, some history, and attract a lot of attention. To feel as special as possible, rare and unique. I just had an entire session with my players trying to get Korvus' sword back off the Sczarni. The proud new owner was waving it about in the Rusty Dragon having returned from the Glassworks and attracted the wrong kind of attention. The sword was stolen from his room that night as he slept. They do have it back now, but not without a lot of roleplay and a well timed sleep spell.
They can also be a way to encourage certain play. As part of our rogues backstory he was given a weakened featherfall ring (only works once an hour). He put lots of skillpoints in climb and has tried things that without the ring he wouldn't have, including an attack he calls 'death from above'.
Why is it I very often see PC's who 'got lucky' with their rolls, but I never, ever see a character being played who got unlucky?That's why we don't roll.
I played in a Star Wars d20 game, where we all played Jedi. We rolled for stats, and my highest was 14. I had a 12, and the rest were sub 10's. In the end, I had 14 Dex, and 12 Con. I also had a 7 Wisdom and a 8 Charisma. I was referred to as the "special" Jedi that rode the little yellow replusor lift to the Jedi academy.
It was also the most fun I ever had playing a Star Wars character.
We had another player who went the 'battle master' route with straight 10's in her physical stats (adding up all her stats and comparing them to mine, and I was still 4 below her). She was...well, her player wanted to prove that physical stats were not so important to 'battle master'. In the end, my 'special Jedi' was straight deadly in lightsaber combat, and she was...not.
By the way, that is why we never roll anymore.
I'm a firm believer in low-magic worlds. There isn't need for lots of magic items. And having magic shops where items are easily sold diminishes the impact of magic items. They should be rare, mystifying, and wondrous.
Too much magic makes a game overpowered. People claim it's the stats. It's not. It's the magic. It's being able to walk around with headbands adding +6 to all mental stats and belts with +6 to all physical stats because you had enough gold to enchant or purchase these items, and uber-cloaks and armor.
In my day and age, we had a term for high-magic campaigns that got quickly overpowered: Monty Haul. And for all the people who claim 15-point builds will handwave away all these problems? I say "try reducing the magic by a bit and see just how potent those stats remain."
Besides. If things get too tough? I can always have one or two extra magic items show up. If things get too easy, I can't just eliminate magic items without the players feeling like I'm punishing them.
In my day and age, we had a term for low-magic campaigns that got quickly underpowered: GM Powertrip. But then again, every low-magic game I've been in have been thinly veiled attempts to screw over the players by GMs that can't stand to lose. So I've learned to avoid low-magic games like the plague.
It just seems like a lot of work, to also have to de-power every NPC in the books, to accommodate a "low magic" game. I mean, it's not really fair to make magic super-rare for the PC's, but still have Nuulia have a magic sword, magic armor, potions, AND several levels as a Boost-type cleric.
It also makes things like the Barghest a party-killer (no one has magic weapons to bypass the DR), and the Shadows as well, if you don't have a Positive Cleric.
In my day and age, we had a term for low-magic campaigns that got quickly underpowered: GM Powertrip. But then again, every low-magic game I've been in have been thinly veiled attempts to screw over the players by GMs that can't stand to lose. So I've learned to avoid low-magic games like the plague.
Why, because you couldn't run around doing everything and vorpal Balors and the like with 10th level characters?
You can have a "GM Powertrip" with overpowered characters with lots of magic. The GM just pits you against something that ignores those magic items.
Also, my players would be the first to state I don't "powertrip" or railroad them into adventures.
I'll be dealing with damage resistance and the like through a simple mechanic: Mythic rules. In fact, having the players be Mythic without lots of magi helps increase their sense of being special further than if they're Mythic in a world like Golarion where it seems almost commonplace in some ways.
In my day and age, we had a term for low-magic campaigns that got quickly underpowered: GM Powertrip. But then again, every low-magic game I've been in have been thinly veiled attempts to screw over the players by GMs that can't stand to lose. So I've learned to avoid low-magic games like the plague.
This is so true. I've seen a GM that every time he wants to play a "low-level" campaign, I have to steer the crowd back to regular Pathfinder. I've learned that in this GM's worlds, every spellcaster has to be finely tuned to the "you wake up in a dungeon" rollup. Usually with Still Spell, Silent Spell, every trait tailored to making special spell-like abilities, wizards with Spell Mastery, etc. It's what has turned me to Dreamscarred Press psionics with their "any power every day" ability.
Just because you've encountered that does not mean EVERY Game Master who wants to run a lower-power game intends to do this.
Let's put it this way. There is a wide variety of lower-level monsters. Most never get used because the PCs often are soon too powerful for such "weak" monsters unless you give them Advanced Templates and/or class levels.
In addition, some GMs may use the Slow Advancement table (which I'm not doing, mind you) so they can utilize Mythic rules while not having the characters become overpowered.
What is the attraction to throw-away magic items anyway? Seriously, magic swords and the like are so common in Golarion and related realms that they don't MEAN anything anymore. They even have spells to turn a mundane sword into a Mastercraft one so you can then enchant it. Why?
Seriously, why? I don't see a magic sword being something you pump out after eight hour's work. It's something that should take weeks, and shouldn't be something you can then take to one side and add extra enchantments like you're upgrading a computer with new components. It's MAGIC, it's supposed to be special. Not mundane and pumped out each day like clockwork. (Seriously, one 5th level wizard could craft two dozen cold iron +1 weapons for the Worldwound border in a month. I'm surprised everyone there isn't armed with magic weapons as part of the war effort, seeing how commonplace this is and how easy it is to craft magic items!)
So I'm putting the "magic" back into magic weapons. I'm making them rarer and special. Or do you honestly think campaigns should be cookie cutter molds with bland 15-point-builds and so much magic you can't sneeze without seeing magic weapons fly out of your characters' noses?
I know, I know, this is generally frowned upon and the AP is written to be balanced for a party of 4 with a 15pt buy. Well, I had them use the 24d6 dice pool method, and as such, their stats average to be about the same, maybe a little higher. I had them make their characters before I really knew what I was doing, and now I obviously can't take their ability scores back. We've run one session so far, making it up to
** spoiler omitted **
I don't have the sheets in front of me but I'm guessing their average level 1 ability score is closer to 12 or 13 than 10. At least one player has 2 18's, but other than that none of the scores seem too high.
Just curious what I can do to offset this error in judgment seeing as I can't just revoke or reduce their ability scores at this point.
Why is it I very often see PC's who 'got lucky' with their rolls, but I never, ever see a character being played who got unlucky?
That's why we don't roll.
So true. An 18 rolling 4d6 drop 1, is roughly the same than a 6. I see several references in the forums to players who wreck havock with 2 18s, but I never see anyone playing a character with 2 sixes, which should be just as common.
In my day and age, we had a term for low-magic campaigns that got quickly underpowered: GM Powertrip. But then again, every low-magic game I've been in have been thinly veiled attempts to screw over the players by GMs that can't stand to lose. So I've learned to avoid low-magic games like the plague.
I have a slightly different point of view. I see them as control-freak GMs. The kind of GM that thinks the game is "theirs" and things should be "as they want". The kind of GMs that would lie about the BBEG hit points (either to increase or reduce them), or will add a needed spell on the fly, because they have "scripted" that the fight "should" be X rounds long, and finish with the BBEG falling from certain balcony at a certain time, and whatever the PC do can't alter that.
Magic, and PC capabilities, tend to make things more difficults to control-freaks, and tend to make scripted combats harder, because, you know, the players can actually play and affect the game.
So speaks one of a growing number of Monty Haul gamers. Seriously, when did Monty Haul become acceptable?
And before you claim "no it's not!" look at how easy it is to get a hold of magic items and to "improve" magic items so they can do anything you want them to do rather than forcing players to pick-and-choose what item and ability to have... and further being forced to do so because that's what they were able to find rather than going to the local magic megastore and pick out the item they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% agree with you Tangent.
As to when did it become acceptable? Unfortunately it became acceptable thanks to the generation gap near as I can tell. When the younger generation (from me anyway) grew up and started gaming...it influxed an entire generation who grew up on instant gratification thanks to, among other things, the internet and tech that allowed this to happen.
If you never knew what it was like to go without...because you never had to due to instant availability and answers...then you can't expect people to want to do that in an environment where the goal is to have fun. Some of us oldies had to deal with the adage of wanting the cake and eating it too. The younger generation (through no fault of their own, times change) gets their cake in 7 different combinations for each member, takes a bite, sends it back and gets a different one in under 30 minutes all at a press of a button. Just makes me glad that everyone in my gaming group is over 35.
So speaks one of a growing number of Monty Haul gamers. Seriously, when did Monty Haul become acceptable?
Actually "Monty haul adventures" is a term from gygaxian era, so I guess it became acceptable (or, at the very least, widespread) around 1975 or so. And being Monty Haul has nothing to do with being a control freak. The most Monty Haul GM I've ever had (25 years ago, for that matter), had us flooding in magic items in AD&D. I had a 10th lvl fighter with a vorpal sword, a helm of brilliance, ethereal full plate, and several other items I can't remember. He was also the most control-freak GM ever, and absolutelly everything in the game happened as he had scripted, with nothing the Chars do having any impact at all. He scripted that the BBEG would last 5 rounds, and he would last 5 rounds, whatever you do. Three crits in a row? Triple HP. You cast "save or die"? He'll save the first 4 automatically. And so on.
Also, Monty Haul suggest easy stuff, and rewards that don't match the risks. That's something control-freaks do also: they fudge the BBEG both up and down, so if the PC don't really pull their weight, they pave the road to success with "fortunate" bad rolls from the BBEG, or a sudden heart attack that removes 100hp from them, as needed. That means whatever treasure they get from that BBEG, is given, not earned, as they didn't defeat the encounter, the encounter self-defeated
Just makes me glad that everyone in my gaming group is over 35.
Everyone in my group is over 35 too. Some of them (one of them specifically) is a control-freak, and he is actually the guy who restrict magic (not only magic items, but also spells) when he is the gm. He openly admits he does so to keep control of the party, because he dislikes when the party do things like teleport, or fly, or use divination spells to solve things.
That's what I mean with a control-freak. GMs that think the game is "their" story, instead of "everybody's" story, and things should happen as he scripted them, instead of how the group as a whole make them happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don't think that perhaps a GM might want to have fewer magic items for storytelling reasons? So that magic items have a history behind them rather than being created by wizards and sold in shops as an industry? It's more interesting when rather than saying "It's a +1 short sword" you can say "this is the sword of Darryk Olander, who made it his mission to track down and slay every single giant spider he could after his beloved was slain by an ettercap. He was finally ambushed by the phase spider Weratpharshia and the blade has not been heard of since."
What's the point of creating a story for a sword if there are several thousand +1 short swords out there, including one that was purchased by a new adventurer who then failed to look for traps and was decapitated, and his body dragged away with the blade still in the sheath. But no one cares because there's several thousand of the bloody things out there.
In another thread we have players working to redeem a Dretch. It's not something planned in the rules. Ascended Demons are extremely rare, so having PCs working to redeem one starting with an act of mercy resulted in some GMs proclaiming "you should kill that thing as quickly as possible" and "that isn't allowed! Demons can't ascend!" and the like. But the GM for that game is doing it, because the story he is crafting allows for it, and the situation around the demon likewise is hinting at something more than just a random encounter.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some of us like low-magic non-Monty Haul campaigns not because we're control freaks but because we're telling a story and feel that a low-magic world allows us to create the sense of magic and wonder to their world, rather than a cookiecutter world where magic is so common it's mundane.