Hi all,
As a GM, when you create content for your sessions, do you review all of the player's character sheets, and then only include challenges that the PCs are equipped to handle? Or do you create the sessions regardless of what the PC group make up is?
Traps, for example. If no one in the party has the ability to deal with traps, do you not put any traps into the adventure? What about skills - if no one took Knowledge (Arcana), do you not have any ancient tomes or symbols that could be deciphered via the skill? Ditto for other skills and their uses.
For combat encounters, if the enemies have special resistances or attacks that make the encounter much more difficult, but no PCs have the appropriate knowledge skill to learn this information, do you simply give that information to the players, or let them try to learn on their own?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last time I was running a campaign I tried to use about 50% of material that was pre-published and agnostic towards my player's strengths/weaknesses and then about 25% stuff designed to play to their strengths, 25% designed to play to their weaknesses.
It helped make a nice balance.
|
In the most ideal situation, I would try to make every PC shines. But I mean the session would have to have been perfect, usually I think more in longterm, everybody will get his spotlight here and there. I put traps even if nobody can deal with them, when it makes sense. I mean, traps are tempting to use but frankly...if you go fight wild beasts in a cave, why would there be traps? Even more so if you consider magical traps, it would mean some caster made the trap, guess someone could pay them...but frankly, just don't add a trap just because. Haunts on the other hand are more party friendly and weirdly more deadly, since they can look like and do whatever you want.
If someone doesn't have the appropriate knowledge, well too bad but they would live. PC experiences new things and learn from their mistakes.
Some npcs or monsters (dragons and very intelligent monsters in general) if they know the pc are coming, you bet they would take advantage of all their weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the philosophy that if no one in the party has the ability to deal with traps, you put in a trap to teach them why it's not a good idea to have no ability to deal with them.
Creative problem-solving with limited resources = essential component of tabletop RPG, as far as I'm concerned.
Unless my PCs are woefully ill equipped to deal an encounter, I let them have it as written or conceived.
Pcs are tough, they are supposed to win. I might tone down traps a little if they do not have a way to address them, but rarely monsters or villains.
With no fear of death and the unknown, the game diminishes in scope.
It becomes just rolling dice and consulting books.
If they can't figure out how to battle something with Knowledge, they will certainly find out when they engage it and then, will certainly remember it later (EXP awards).
It also gives a great in game reason why a PC spent several ranks learning a new skill they never had before, because, clearly they never want that to happen again!
I do try to limit encounters that marginalize a pc. For example, witches are normally poorly suited to combating undead, I often tried to include tasks or baddies suited for my pc witch in
Any obstacle that can only be overcome by a single skill not possessed by the party is generally a bad obstacle. So if you have a tome that can only be deciphered by a Knowledge (arcana) check, that's likely a bad obstacle. Sure, the party could carry the tome to a friendly NPC and have them make the check, but depending on the circumstances that could be completely unfeasible. But if there are other ways to decipher the tome, such as read magic or Linguistics, then it's probably not a bad obstacle.
Traps aren't bad obstacles in this sense. There are so many ways to overcome traps without using Perception/Disable Device that I don't think you can refer to these standard solutions as "creative".
Hi all,
As a GM, when you create content for your sessions, do you review all of the player's character sheets, and then only include challenges that the PCs are equipped to handle? Or do you create the sessions regardless of what the PC group make up is?
Traps, for example. If no one in the party has the ability to deal with traps, do you not put any traps into the adventure? What about skills - if no one took Knowledge (Arcana), do you not have any ancient tomes or symbols that could be deciphered via the skill? Ditto for other skills and their uses.
For combat encounters, if the enemies have special resistances or attacks that make the encounter much more difficult, but no PCs have the appropriate knowledge skill to learn this information, do you simply give that information to the players, or let them try to learn on their own?
Much like Pirate Rob, a goodly portion of my material exists separate from the PCs, and I tailor some challenges and events to their various interests, strengths, and weaknesses.
If there are things the party isn't equipped to handle, I leave it to the players how to handle that, via NPC specialists or just avoiding/ignoring it as they will.
If the NPCs have a chance to find out about the PCs, specific events may be more tailored towards them.
For our game, the word acts and reacts to you and your choices -- if the PCs stomp around making noise and making their goal clear to go slay the dragon, the dragon's minions may well hear about it and make plans as an example.
As a player, I want to feel that my build choices matter. This happens both when I pick something (a skill, feat, etc.) that turns out to be helpful in an encounter, and (perhaps even more so) when something I chose not to take would have been helpful.
If the players run into an obstacle for which they lack the most obvious solution, they usually get creative, which makes for fun gaming.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the philosophy that the game is more fun if no-one is playing a class they didn't want to play but were forced to, because the GM made it compulsory.
If you're creating your own adventure, you have the advantage of being able to create a challenge appropriate for your players. If they decide to make a party with no casters, you can avoid putting in challenges that require magic to get past.
If the players have no-one with Disable Device, then adding a trap is fine (finding a way past without a skill roll can be an interesting challenge). Adding a trap that will wipe out the entire party, or a locked door that will stop the campaign in its tracks, is harsh. You can put in writings that they will probably have no way of reading; just make sure that it comes across as atmospheric rather than pointlessly frustrating.
|
|
I include traps and skill checks regardless of party make up. However, I will make sure the PCs have other avenues to complete the adventure. If they need knowledge arcana they can find a scholar to help them. If there is a deadly trap there will be a second route maybe even a secret one that they can discover.
Investigation is a huge part of my games. The players know before setting off they need to do their homework. That said I run a combat as war type game so I dont pull punches on the PCs. My players know this and are prepared to retreat if need be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd aim more for what the party has then hasn't. I like to make each PC shine at least once during a game. However, if you do drop something they cant deal with (book they can't read). Then that's an excellent next adventure hook to figure out what the heck that book is about.
fine_young_misanthrope's post make an excellent point. If you're running a more sandbox-y game you want challenges for which there is no immediate obvious solution, because that drives further exploration and motivates the PCs.
If you're running a more story-driven game where the PCs already have clearly defined goals then a challenge like that is more of an impediment to the story.
My strategy is to make sure an adventure can both highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs, and basically allow the nature of their choices to shine.
So, if no one can deal with traps, I'll place a trap in the way when I want players to view it as a particularly difficult barrier.
Have mook battles early so that the PCs can showcase their skills, and then have more challenging encounters to make the taste of victory that much sweeter. Stuff like that.
Of course, the stories of the PCs are very, very important as well. I love adding arcing subplots for the PCs into the adventures over time.
Ultimately, this is why I have trouble with extreme min-maxing; you aren't competing with the monsters; the monsters will be whatever is challenging to you. You end up competing with the other players, and that's no fun.
I despise traps and don't use them. Outside of that, I'll run an AP as presented.
Otherwise I do not throw things specific for or against the characters. Rather I let the story and world determine what sort of things should be present.
If you're sailing a boat, somebody damn well better know how to sail.
I create what I feel is a logical encounter for my PCs. Their archenemies are going to study their tactics and learn their weaknesses. The wild boars that are agitated by their traveling? Not so much.
When designing dungeons, I think about the culture who previously inhabited the area, if one existed. If my players are venturing into a kobold hold, then there are going to be traps, even if no one is equipped to deal with them effectively. If they're going into the remains of a purple worm's tunnel, then there probably won't be any traps there.
The art of the GM, however, is choosing locations that test a PC's abilities in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I design for level and general bent of the characters; not the specifics. I really don't have the time, patience or desire to study the minutae of the PCs' sheets and go "Hm, I see THIS guy has Sleight of Hand maxed. I should have an encounter that can only be won by juggling..."
Not only is that specifically singling out one character above all others but also that sets a precedent where the players think that every obscure choice they make will be highlighted. I hate to admit this to any potential players out there, but I'm not going to cater my game to a series of remote build choices. I want to involve ALL my players.
Now that being said I'm not heartless. I wholeheartedly encourage my players to use their skills, powers and feats in creative ways. The fact that they can't think of any isn't my issue. But I don't design specifically at their weakenesses, faults or shortfalls either. If no one has any Perception skills (which frankly is dumb) I'm not going to send them through a trap-filled gauntlet but I will have a couple in there and the players better get creative: roll balls or water down the hall; send in a familiar or animal companion; summon up a monster; etc.
As for knowledge, I don't generally hand out monster lore. My players never roll for it regardless of what they're fighting. Seriously they walked into a fight with a single re-skinned brownie that was evil and had some snares and pit traps laid out; between it's powers and defenses and the outlying traps this simple "non-violent" first encounter nearly turned into a TPK!
But if there's something they HAVE to know I put it in multiple forms. I know it's called "the rule of 3" where you give like 3 clues to solving a mystery but I usually give 5-7. Books written in common; pictures on walls/tapestries; obscure materials... heck, one time I specifically chose the gems I did in a treasure horde because one of the players was a big fan of the chart in the old 1e DMG that shows the "supernatural properties" of gems like how hematite is good for healing. The gems I chose suggested the monsters coveted necromancy. It wasn't MY fault that the player ignored that, plus half a dozen OTHER more obvious clues only realizing they were walking into a horde of undead when he happened upon a living wall of bone in an ossuary.
TLDR: bottom line, I cater to what the characters AND the players should be able to handle. I won't target specific strengths nor weaknesses. Whatever they chose to do w/their characters is THEIR business.
Specific to PCs. I consider that to just be fair.
Now, bear in mind, 'can handle' and 'can easily handle' are two different things. But, for example, putting a trap or obstacle that can only be bypassed by a use of Channel Energy when the party has no Paladin, Cleric or Life Oracle is just asinine.
I'm a big fan of letting players play what they want, not filling roles or niches. If nobody wants to play a trapsmith, then I go easy on the traps. I've always loathed 'who gets stuck playing the rogue' or 'who gets stuck playing the cleric' or 'I know you want to play an X, but we really need a Y' in general.
I tend to write an adventure that can be dealt with by a variety of characters. As the adventure unfolds and the characters grow, they tend to change to match the world rather than the other way around. I will add scenarios specifically for a character and sometimes it's obvious and sometimes it's not. It's always part of the campaign though. I don't just add them to appease the players.
I like to have adventures where a variety of skills are used as well. I think it's important to give everyone an opportunity to be part of things in and out of combat. Some things won't need skill checks but having the skill can help. Some things place more emphasis on the character's ability rather than the skill points. For example, just because the wizard has a higher Craft (weapons) check does not necessarily mean that he's the best person to try to buy weapons for the party. The fighter might be the better choice because the NPC might feel a kinship with someone who appreciates the work rather than the technical knowledge.
I also encourage players to try to use skills in unusual ways or "off label" as I call it. If you can successfully argue why Perform (Oratory) is a viable skill for determining the weather, I say to make your argument. (You probably won't win that one but other options might work.)
The extreme of 'building encounters to suit the PCs' means that everyone might as well play lvl 1 commoners.
If every monster can hit the highest AC, then why bother maxing AC? You'll get hit on 11+ anyway.
If any monster can survive max. damage from the highest damage-dealer, why bother maxing damage? Every monster will survive your intial attacks anyway?
Pathfinder is not only about building a single PC, but also about building a party. A good adventuring party will be able to overcome any challenges encounter, one way or another. If you can't pick locks, then you better be prepared to bash down doors... and thus give any foes behind said doors long time to prepare. If you low on magic, then find a way to overcome arcane challenges. If you're low on knowledge skills, be prepared to miss clues, and perhaps even treasures, along the way. Or buy a book on ancient Ghol-Tan Empires, if you suspect you'll encounter Ghol-Tan ruins in your next adventure.
In short; I don't build encounters to my PC's. I build encounters to a wellbalanced party. That means the heavily combat-based party will walk right through some encounters, and be stuck at others.
A good adventuring party will be able to overcome any challenges encounter, one way or another. If you can't pick locks, then you better be prepared to bash down doors... and thus give any foes behind said doors long time to prepare. If you low on magic, then find a way to overcome arcane challenges. If you're low on knowledge skills, be prepared to miss clues, and perhaps even treasures, along the way
This is how I've always designed sessions/adventures/encounters. Its interesting to see people's feedback so far. For our group, during character creation we usually ask:
"What's everyone going to play? Who's going to handle healing? Thief stuff (traps, locks, etc.)"
If as a group you can eliminate traps from the mix by simply not having anyone in the party that can deal with traps, that seems to really devalue the rogue class.
I actually tend to design large parts of campaigns way in advance. As such, PCs die, classes change, skill sets change, etc. I don't modify the adventure location because the party no longer can handle traps, for example. I also don't make it where you MUST disable a trap in order to advance, either. But the party will almost assuredly lose resources that they could have otherwise kept.
The extreme of 'building encounters to suit the PCs' means that everyone might as well play lvl 1 commoners...
If I had a group of players who said "We all want to play as level 1 commoners" I'd be happy to build an adventure around that rather than forcing them through the same adventure I'd create if they all wanted to play wizards.
I understand the appeal of creating an adventure that rewards a well-balanced party, and letting the players sink or swim. But you're also going to wind up rewarding cheesy powergaming builds (or, alternatively, making the game nowhere near challenging enough for optimizers).
Ex: the PCs are moving along a bridge on their way into a ruined town overgrown by dense forest. There are no rogues; however there is a ranger on point. Said ranger rolls Perception: 22. I tell the PC "the bridge up ahead is cracked the same as other sections, but you notice that this section is broken neatly, as if on purpose."
The ranger has no Disable Device. He makes a running jump with Acrobatics and barely makes a 10' jump. I rule that the leap sets off the collapse; there's now a gaping, 10' break in the bridge. the fighter throws a rope to the ranger, then ties it off on his end to a section of sturdy rail. The ranger does the same and the cleric and wizard use belts, secure themselves to the rope, and finally shimmy across.
Now, I'm not saying that every party or GM would have the same experience in the same situation, but that's what my group did. My point is that if the players have even a little skill mixed with some ingenuity, they'll find ways to get stuff done. As such, traps aren't really just for rogues.
That leads back to the larger point of some in this thread: you don't need to cater to the strengths OR weaknesses of the party for them to overcome challenges. Now granted, if EVERYONE in the party geared up for a wilderness campaign full of hack and slash and all I had planned was urban diplomacy, I'd probably go back to the drawing board a little. But for the most part, so long as I'm running the general kind of game my players want, why manufacture the entire world SOLELY around them?
Now granted, if EVERYONE in the party geared up for a wilderness campaign full of hack and slash and all I had planned was urban diplomacy, I'd probably go back to the drawing board a little. But for the most part, so long as I'm running the general kind of game my players want, why manufacture the entire world SOLELY around them?
This is also an important point; pre-game expectations and discussions of these. If you're going to run an urban investigation, and your players all show up with wilderness rangers, druids and barbarians, you obviously either didn't discuss this before hand, or completely failed your conversation. :)
I allways discuss the adventure I'm going to run with my players before we start. I make sure that we're all on the same page regarding expectations. This goes both in regards to roleplaying (does a paladin really belong in this adventure?), group composition (is a CE rogue and a CG ranger a good mix?) and group skillset (are we low on healing? Can we buy wands instead of having an ingroup solution?).
I prefer to adapt for the players somewhat. Give them challenges that arent completely out of their grasp. I'm currently running a game with 2 martials (samurai & fighter, no-one else) so I'm not going to put challenges that cant be solved without magic... However, I did boost their skill points (+2 per level) and I'm interested in what they manage to do. Might end up giving them some free cohorts later, just so that they have more tools, but it isnt strictly necessary.
Basically, I dont mind giving them challenges that can be solves eventually (like the one with a magical book, that can be dragged along), but otherwise unsolvable ones (a magical trap that can ONLY be escaped by using another, specific type of magic) just make the game unpleasant.
** spoiler omitted **
That's a good example of a trap that can be avoided without disable device all together. You must agree, however, that there are many traps (magic traps specifically) that a rogue-less group will not have any ability to disable.
Perhaps you can design the traps so that a rogue is not necessary, but if so, that again is my point. If the party is rogue-less (or trap disabling-less for those archetypes that grant the rogue ability), and you as a GM then make the traps easier, then couldn't you just as easily make the argument that if you bring a rogue to the game, the traps are going to be more difficult?
If so, isn't that penalizing the group for choosing to bring a rogue? To me what makes more sense is that the world is as the world is. It does not dynamically change to accommodate PC strengths & weaknesses. Some adventures will be trap heavy, some will be trap light, and some will not have any traps at all. If the PCs do not have the ability to handle traps, they'll have to expend precious resources to try to get through them.
** spoiler omitted **That's a good example of a trap that can be avoided without disable device all together. You must agree, however, that there are many traps (magic traps specifically) that a rogue-less group will not have any ability to disable.
Perhaps you can design the traps so that a rogue is not necessary, but if so, that again is my point. If the party is rogue-less (or trap disabling-less for those archetypes that grant the rogue ability), and you as a GM then make the traps easier, then couldn't you just as easily make the argument that if you bring a rogue to the game, the traps are going to be more difficult?
If so, isn't that penalizing the group for choosing to bring a rogue? To me what makes more sense is that the world is as the world is. It does not dynamically change to accommodate PC strengths & weaknesses. Some adventures will be trap heavy, some will be trap light, and some will not have any traps at all. If the PCs do not have the ability to handle traps, they'll have to expend precious resources to try to get through them.
If the players know this beforehand, sure, they can deal with it. But people are here to have fun, first and foremost. This is a leisure activity we're talking about. Not all groups have a player that wants to be a rogue, or a cleric, or a wizard. I have had GMs that like to "force" people to take certain roles, and it makes me resent them to a certain degree. About as much as anything else that removes my control over my choices in character creation.
Then again, I dislike traps from the get-go. From a world-building perspective, a lot of traps make no sense. Especially in an inhabited area, or in an area that is controlled by a dude with none of the necessary expertise at hand. I have yet to see traps done in a way that makes sense.
"A character sheet is a love letter to the GM" - Fred Hicks
That's from memory, so might not be 100% accurate, but that's how I treat the party. Players should make characters they want to play. As the GM, I should steer them towards certain kinds of choices, by setting certain requirements or making restrictions, to help tailor the party to the adventure/story/campaign, so that the campaign works well for them and they work well for it. I also find that restrictions reduce the analysis paralysis (too many choices slows things down) and increases creativity.
That said, I do use the character sheets when designing challenges. The character sheet is how a player informs me, knowingly or not, of how they want to approach challenges in the game. I don't design every challenge with a solution in mind though, sometimes I try to trust my gut, do I think Joe can come up with a solution with what he has? If so, I put it in.
I also put in a different kind of challenge. I don't do this for every roll, but I do put it in. Success gains you something positive. Close to a success (usually within 5) gets you a partial success, or something good AND bad (usually with the option to forgo the good to avoid the bad). Failure means I get to choose something bad that happens.
Example: You encounter an ancient text in the Lich's tomb that requires Knowledge (Arcana) to make sense of. Success: You know where his phylactery is. Partial: You know where it is but take 1d6 Wisdom damage. Failure: You know where his phylactery is, but it's unreachable and/or reveals an unpleasant twist on the campaign (it's set in the king's crown). Read the text and roll at your own peril.
Example: You encounter an ancient text in the Lich's tomb that requires Knowledge (Arcana) to make sense of. Success: You know where his phylactery is. Partial: You know where it is but take 1d6 Wisdom damage. Failure: You know where his phylactery is, but it's unreachable and/or reveals an unpleasant twist on the campaign (it's set in the king's crown). Read the text and roll at your own peril.
So the physical location of the lich's phylactery changes based on if the PCs succeed at a knowledge check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I create an adventure I always have a copy of the player’s characters to reference. Also before the campaign begins I look over the party and bring up anything I see the party lacking. I do not tell anyone that they have to play a certain class or in any way force them to play something they do not want. This is also a good time to go over what type of campaign the players want. Most of the time all it takes is some minor adjustments for the party to cover the weaknesses.
If no one in the party is willing to modify the characters then I don’t force it, but do warn them it may create problems. One way to reinforce the weakness is with minor encounters that are not crucial to the plot. A good example would be if no one has disable device there may be a treasure room with some nice magic items in it that they do not get. Using side quests or minor encounters works best for this.
When I am creating the plot I use what would be logical for the adventure. After this I go back and look for roadblocks. If I find something the party is not capable of handling I will create an alternative way around it. This way is usually not easy to spot, and is usually harder but the way does exist. For example if there is a locked door that the party cannot open then maybe there is a hidden tunnel that leads to a cave complex filled with monsters.
Example: You encounter an ancient text in the Lich's tomb that requires Knowledge (Arcana) to make sense of. Success: You know where his phylactery is. Partial: You know where it is but take 1d6 Wisdom damage. Failure: You know where his phylactery is, but it's unreachable and/or reveals an unpleasant twist on the campaign (it's set in the king's crown). Read the text and roll at your own peril.So the physical location of the lich's phylactery changes based on if the PCs succeed at a knowledge check?
Yup. I don't determine everything before play starts, even as GM. That's too much work IMO. I have ideas of where things are and what they're like, but those ideas are subject to change as needed by what is going on.
I also ask my players questions, their answers will determine things about the game world. They might not know exactly what they're determining at the time.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this style of play. The main advantages for me is it vastly reduces the amount of prep that I do and it helps me put the PC's center stage, as I spend the session reacting to them as long as they're proactive. If they become passive, ninja's attack (or whatever equivalent is appropriate). I don't even have to know who sent the ninja's, the players will invariable fill in that detail with their table talk.
Example: You encounter an ancient text in the Lich's tomb that requires Knowledge (Arcana) to make sense of. Success: You know where his phylactery is. Partial: You know where it is but take 1d6 Wisdom damage. Failure: You know where his phylactery is, but it's unreachable and/or reveals an unpleasant twist on the campaign (it's set in the king's crown). Read the text and roll at your own peril.So the physical location of the lich's phylactery changes based on if the PCs succeed at a knowledge check?Yup. I don't determine everything before play starts, even as GM. That's too much work IMO. I have ideas of where things are and what they're like, but those ideas are subject to change as needed by what is going on.
I also ask my players questions, their answers will determine things about the game world. They might not know exactly what they're determining at the time.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this style of play. The main advantages for me is it vastly reduces the amount of prep that I do and it helps me put the PC's center stage, as I spend the session reacting to them as long as they're proactive. If they become passive, ninja's attack (or whatever equivalent is appropriate). I don't even have to know who sent the ninja's, the players will invariable fill in that detail with their table talk.
I second this method. I've been playing a similarly improvisational way. Havent GM-ed much, but I think in the long run it will be easier.I still prepare a basic setting as a canvas, and the players fill in the rest.
|
|
As the GM, I am the guardian of Fun for our group. If my friends do not have fun because I did not bother to check their PC's abilities and/or check the tasks required by the scenario, then I am the guilty one.
Doubly so if I stick to what is written even though it has become an obvious problem. Time for some good impro.
A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B.
[list]
@ Irontruth: wait... what? Please elaborate or, if too much of a threadjack, please PM me for discussion or start a new Gamer Talk thread all together. I gotta know the kinds of "questions you ask" to later determine where the game's going. Also, doesn't that break immersion? "Ok Tim: you pick up the lich's journal. If you: a - roll a success, you know where the lich's phylactery is; b - get close to a success you pretty much know but your mind literally drains away into the book; c - you know where it is, but you're not gonna like it." I can immediately think of like 3 different ways my players would react. They'd complain that if the book drains Wis they should've been able to detect it; they'd close the book and teleport to a sage to make them read it; they'd immediately begin tearing the dungeon apart brick by brick for another way to find the phylactery.
I'm NOT knocking you in any way Irontruth; I want to know how you pull this off because I've been trying for years! I try to run sandboxy and have the world react to the PCs but I haven't yet figured out how to think eight steps ahead like you obviously do. Do you ALWAYS win at chess, or do you sometimes throw a game to be nice?
Back to the topic though, I still say if you design SPECIFICALLY to the PCs it gets to the point where the rest of the fictional world around them doesn't matter. Like the PCs enter an area and suddenly all the monsters are level-appropriate. That just seems, I don't know, counterintuitive to me.
Yup. I don't determine everything before play starts, even as GM. That's too much work IMO. I have ideas of where things are and what they're like, but those ideas are subject to change as needed by what is going on.
That's definitely different than I've ever played.
@ Irontruth: wait... what? Please elaborate or...
I must admit I am also curious.
I create a huge sandbox with dozens of plots, settings, and encounters then let the PC's loose.
Tailoring anything to spesific skills, feats, abilities, and classes is a pretty D!c* move.
Life is not fair and neither am I!
I play it as strait as I can and ask for help when needed!
@ Irontruth: wait... what?
Doesnt seem that tough if you keep all the cards in your hat. I've run a dungeon oneshot where each time they came to a crossroad, they chose one way, then I rolled randomly to see what room they would find. They could never know that what they got was determined after they made their choice, because they where never aware of the decision making process. But yes, this might need to be moved to another thread.
|
|
@ Irontruth: wait... what? Please elaborate or, if too much of a threadjack, please PM me for discussion or start a new Gamer Talk thread all together. I gotta know the kinds of "questions you ask" to later determine where the game's going. Also, doesn't that break immersion? "Ok Tim: you pick up the lich's journal. If you: a - roll a success, you know where the lich's phylactery is; b - get close to a success you pretty much know but your mind literally drains away into the book; c - you know where it is, but you're not gonna like it." I can immediately think of like 3 different ways my players would react. They'd complain that if the book drains Wis they should've been able to detect it; they'd close the book and teleport to a sage to make them read it; they'd immediately begin tearing the dungeon apart brick by brick for another way to find the phylactery.
I'm NOT knocking you in any way Irontruth; I want to know how you pull this off because I've been trying for years! I try to run sandboxy and have the world react to the PCs but I haven't yet figured out how to think eight steps ahead like you obviously do. Do you ALWAYS win at chess, or do you sometimes throw a game to be nice?
If Irontruth's GMing style is similar to mine (and it really sounds so), the real answer is being lazy.
Trust the Laziness, Mark ;-)
That said, I woudl also be much interested in an answer (maybe in a specific thread) by Irontruth. He just might have a few tricks I can steal. Or the other way around :-)
Unless it has a very high chance of causing a TPK, they just have to deal with it. Eventually they adapt as they level up to cover any weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Partially it is laziness, but not really.
Nothing I do is novel or new. I borrow or steal it from other places. I steal wholeheartedly and with great vigor. If we want to start a new thread, I can get into sources/inspirations.
As for the questions, I tell people that I game with that I'm going to give them input and control over the world. I've found several large benefits to doing this:
1) They're more invested in it, because more of it is 'theirs'.
2) It's less work creatively for me. I just have to come up with half of it (the question) and hope that inspires someone else.
3) It means less time spent on prep. I don't mind prepping, but the less of it that I have to do, the better.
Long example to get at one question/answer, I'll try to keep it as concise as possible.
In our homebrew campaign there was a schism within the primary faith. It had been headed by priests of one order, but their influence waned and combined with a civil war in one country, divided the major religion of the world.
Current campaign is a crusade to take back a region where a new religion has sprung up and taken over several holy sites. The new religion is decidedly evil and has encouraged a certain amount of teaming up between the factions of the old religion, but rifts still exist.
One of the players belonged to a secret order within one of the priesthoods. Another player just joined a different order that best resembles the Catholic Inquisition. I asked that second player the following question:
Q: "Why does the leader of the inquisition fear this secret order?"
A: "He believes that they might produce an individual who could reunite the religion."
I'm paraphrasing for simplicity, without needing to cover all the actual names/titles of things in our campaign. I used this answer to color the inquisition leader's personality and goals. He had been a hardcore militant, but now he was also paranoid about losing his power (the inquisition were big winners in the schism). It has also opened a door for the players (they haven't found or tried to exploit though), because he is deeply devoted to the religion, that if a unifying figure were proved to be sent by the gods, he'd completely fall in line, instead of being an adversary for the party.
As for anticipating the players, I do my best to try, but that isn't where I succeed. Instead, I feed off table talk. I try to present some ambiguity, then when the players start positing theories to one another, I pick some of those to be true.
1) It didn't take any of my time to create the theory
2) The players feel awesomely smart for having spotted the conspiracy a mile away.
The hard part is not letting the (2) be obvious and still feel rewarding. That means changing the theory in subtle ways to make it close, but not exact. Also, sometimes I'll let the theory be true for a while, then turn it into a red-herring (while giving them an easy path to the truth).
This also has the added benefit that even as the GM, I get to be surprised by the story. I love playing to find out what happens, but that means planning less of it and just relying on the play of the game to direct the story.
None of this is a new technique, some old-school GM's did this kind of thing. I actually learned it from playing other games and have borrowed it to bring back to the Pathfinder game. We can make a new thread and talk about it more if you want.
@ Irontruth: ok, I think I understand, and I try to be the same kind of GM. I guess I've just got different players with different priorities/expectations.
Table talk - yes, I feed off that too... when there is some. Most of the table talk at my games revolves around programming language, episodes of the Simpsons or other RW, non-game stuff.
Asking questions - I ask my players questions; here's some answers I get:
Q what do you do with your 3 days of downtime
A what... oh... wait at the bar...
(PC is now seen as an alcoholic)
Q where is your player from
A a village
Q which one
A ... I don't know, a small one?
(said village has been obliterated so completely people don't even remember the name)
Q why does your character adventure
a because he's a fighter
My players think the single paragraph of boxed text leading into a scenario in Descent is too much plot. No matter how specific I get in my questions my players don't care enough to world build with me. As a result, there's not much I can draw from. Now, in my CURRENT campaign there's a couple guys who try to stay in character and work things out (I wonder why the kobold priest was directing these zombies; I didn't think there were any kobolds IN this forest. Maybe it's because... and I'm furiously scribbling notes) but for the most part these kinds of players seem to be the minority in my games.
I dream of the days back when I was younger and gamed every week, sometimes twice a week, where my players would feed me ideas in game, on bio breaks, while working the counter at the bookstore, or whenever they happened to run into me. MAN that was an easy time to be a GM...