I think that, more than changes to the time it takes to cast spells, etc., the real fix needs to start with the skill/feat straitjacket. Players, conditioned by video game RPGs, expect to constantly get new powers and new stuff. In older editions, your fighter got a few more hit points, your thief got a higher percentage on their pick-locks, etc. when they leveled. What defined the characters was their actions during the session, not the feat they just got when they dinged the next level...
This is something that I have also noticed. It seems that for some (many?) players of modern games (D&D 3.x and later), they play the game as much for the "rush" they get when their PC levels up so they can see what new cool powers they can now access as they do for the thrill of exploration and group fun that goes with playing through a module.
I have seen several instances on these forums where after just a few combat encounters players start asking "So...level up?" as if that is their driving motivation for playing. When I was playing AD&D (where classes had lots of "dead" levels), our PC's level was primarily just a gauge for what module we could take on: a group of 3rd level PC's could handle Bone Hill but not White Plume Mountain and that was all our level told us. Leveling up wasn't an end unto itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where I find it near impossible is on social rolls. Diplomacy took the wind out of a lot of RP sails. Still, I try to muddle through.
So easy. Circumstance bonuses/penalties are the DM's friend. If they just say "I use Diplomacy on the guard to get thru the gate" assign a -2, if they say "i walk up to the guard,chat with him a few minutes, drop the name of the Guards Commander casually into the conversation..." then assign a +2. Let them know this.
That +4 difference can make or break the deal. OTOH, if the Player is socially inept but really wants to play a Diplomancer, he still can. He can say " I use my Ks Nobility or Local check to see if there's anything to say that might help" so that gets a +0 (well, maybe even a +1 if that other check is really good).
So, Good roleplaying is rewarded, and good Rolls/building is also rewarded.
Why should I pretend to talk to that guy? I rolled a 20 on Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive?Because the DC was 21. Sorry. Roll for initiative.
Heh, my brother's playing a Paladin in my current campaign who is planning on making a case to the high council of his order, in which he is going to attempt to convince them to not give a group of vampires the axe. He's very nervous that he's not going to be able to do it. One of the players is sweating buckets about it (of course her character is one of the vampires too and she loves the vampire NPCs that they're friends with).
To put it into perspective...
1. Their culture and religion is very strongly anti-black magic or anything associated with it and they really, really dislike undead.
2. The council is built up of high ranking templar that have a long history of fighting and killing monsters like vampires and carrying out the religious ideals of their faith.
3. The council has to worry about the politics of the whole thing since it would look bad to the general public and such if they found out that there was a small coven of vampires lurking around in the capital city of their country.
4. The party Paladin is already concerned that he's skating on thin ice with the order since he brought back two vampires with him from out of the country when he returned from an assignment and declared them under his protection.
I'm looking forward to the encounter really. He'll be thankful that he has a great Diplomacy modifier, but he's been talking OOC about points he is going to try to stress to the council and hopes to iterate some of their religious ideals as reasons to be merciful (their religion has a story where the head of their religion saved the life of a devil when she was in need and then freed her from indentured servitude).
What the players don't know is I've been keeping track of a number of things behind the scenes that will also help affect the overall mood and outcome of their encounter, including how he and the party have been conducting themselves, how well they succeeded in dealing with the BBEG, how many casualties within the order occurred (which contributes to how much the council sees the vampires as a threat), and the attitude of the vampires to be judged, etc.
The party doesn't realize it but they've been raking in success points all over the place. So far the party has...
1. The Paladin and the party succeeded greatly in their initial mission (which was unrelated to the vampires at all) which got him a promotion from his chapel master before being sent to the capital. His previous success, rank, and letter of recommendation from his chapel master is a plus.
2. The Paladin went to the Templar and told them up front about his mission in the capital and that he had a pair of vampires that he was taking care of. His not trying to hide anything dodged a penalty.
3. The Vampires in the party have been feeding on their fellow party members who can heal ability damage. The fact they haven't been preying on unwilling people has dodged a penalty.
4. The PC vampire (at the time in disguise) helped to fight and end a giant babau demon that attacked an infirmary to finish off a victim who got away. Where the demon came from is still under investigation, however her revealing herself to protect the bystanders resulted in a number of witnesses who insist she protected them. That's a plus.
5. When a high priest asked the Paladin to bring the vampires back to the cathedral, the NPC vampire came willingly (she is actually from their country and has the same religious upbringing and has a lot of faith in the justness of the Templar). Even when it was uncertain as to whether she would be given a fair deal, she still went willingly. That was a plus, but a couple of the PCs acted like they were going to start a fight with the Templar if they took her away (which earned a penalty). The scene would have been a wash in modifiers if it wasn't for the Diplomacy-check and an appeal: "I asked her to come here and promised that she would be safe and could see her family again. I'm asking you to please see that she is safe because she believes in us, and I think we should give her a chance too," which earned them another point.
6. When they raided the vampire lord's mansion, they were sent with a team of Templar to support them. One of the order's champions and six knights. Each knight that survived the mission was a +1 to their success total and each knight that perishd was a -1. The champion was worth a +1 if he made it through and a -10 if he died in the battle. The party manage to succeed with no casualties. Biiiig score here.
7. Most of the vampire minions were going to fight or flee after the encounter with the vampire lord. Two of which ended up barricading themselves behind a hidden door that led to the vampire's lair. The PC vampire ended up convincing them to come along peacefully without a fight, and talked the two of them of them into coming out and surrendering to the Templar. Earned some points here as well.
All that's really left for them to do is return to the Templar and try to make a case on behalf of the vampires in question. They'll be competing for different grades of success, ranging from...
Worst case scenario
All the vampires are executed or entombed in the catacombs and the Paladin is kicked out of the order.
Best Case Scenario
All the vampires are placed under a sort of probational protection by the Templar and allowed to live in the mansion they were hiding in as citizens, possibly allowing the vampire NPC that Paladin likes to become a member of the order, and the Paladin receiving another promotion.
We'll see how it goes, but I'm very proud of my group, and I project that unless they do something crazy like trying to fireball the council or something, things are looking good for them. :P
|
Some good points here about Diplomacy and player role-played out interactions and how the skill system has changed things when it was introduced.
It would be nice to have a system that would (RAW) support both. Role-play out conversations with bonuses and minuses as they progress (something I do) while supporting those who don't feel as comfortable and just would rather leave it up the dice and their invested skill points.
|
|
It would be nice to have a system that would (RAW) support both. Role-play out conversations with bonuses and minuses as they progress (something I do) while supporting those who don't feel as comfortable and just would rather leave it up the dice and their invested skill points.
It would be nice. But the problem, as I see it, is if you're simply going to leave it to dice and skill points. Why not play a board game, they're cheaper. You've already invest time, money and energy into it only to stop at the point that the game is all about? It doesn't add up to me.
I suppose you could have rules that are strictly for hack and slashers; but again, you're playing a board game at that point.
Some people are just not comfortable role-playing out their character in any detail. Maybe they are not that glib or just feel awkward doing it yet they enjoy all other aspects of the game and they still make character decisions. I've met a few.
This isn't a zero sum game; one system or option does not necessarily mean that the other cannot be used at the same time: a detailed, role-playing adjusted Diplomacy check system paired with the existing die roll system. Both can work at the same time – possibly giving reward to those who delve deeper (the detailed, rp’d Diplomacy player). No different than the reward given to the fighter who moves tactically throughout the battlefield going after high value targets vs. the grim fighter mowing down only whatever is in front of him because he doesn’t want to deal with the intricacies of the battle mat, AoO, etc .
Both are playing, one may have a faster effect (high value targets) on the outcome but they are both contributing to the fight and the end result.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use the Take 10 approach to several skills, Perception being one of them. I tell my players ahead of time that I'll be using their "base" perception or whatever and just tell them when they notice something if they're not under duress. Then, if we're in combat or some kind of conflict threatens the party, I make them roll.
For example if my players are exploring the entry of a cave and they tell me up front they're being cautious then I note their base perception checks. If it's high enough to notice the signs of the trap in the hall (Perception DC 20) then I'll just tell them "You notice an odd flag in the floor" and just roll from there. Similarly if I know a wizard has invested skills in Knowledge: Arcana and comes upon some arcane runes on a door, I'll tell the player they are arcane in nature, in the tradition of the flame mages of Kithyar, and may in fact be enchanted.
I think where I fall down as a GM is I rarely add things JUST to add things; they usually have some kind of game impact. As a result my players have learned that, if I'm telling them something, it must somehow be a boon/threat to them. On the plus side they pay close attention but on the downside they tend to be very jaded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a zero sum game; one system or option does not necessarily mean that the other cannot be used at the same time
And good role-play is it's own reward. I'd have no problem with one player just dicing it while the others ham it up; the ones hamming it up are having fun doing so!
|
|
And good role-play is it's own reward. I'd have no problem with one player just dicing it while the others ham it up; the ones hamming it up are having fun doing so!
This isn't a zero sum game; one system or option does not necessarily mean that the other cannot be used at the same time
Agreed - and one of my players who used to always describe actions in third-person started upping his RP ante because the other players would be heavily in their characters talking to me (NPCs) and each other (including him). So it is its own reward and if both options are included you may find those normally introverted players or those uncomfortable who just "roll dice" with wade into some RP will start to engage in more RP.
-I think where I fall down as a GM is I rarely add things JUST to add things; they usually have some kind of game impact. As a result my players have learned that, if I'm telling them something, it must somehow be a boon/threat to them. On the plus side they pay close attention but on the downside they tend to be very jaded.
And ironically sometimes I add in too much detail, so much so that the players get worked up over nothing but detail and it gets a little buggy. Looking at strange cracks in a wall and expecting secret doors, etc. Player actions are described by the players and they interact with the environment based on what I describe in my games then they roll for those actions. They are counting and acting upon information presented – and I am the king of red herrings, and that can be a problem.
This also works against many of my open sandbox type games and the running away from overly powerful encounters from a few posts back.
You describe a semi-rare (but not excessively powerful) creature as they spy it, and they think that it is just too weird and possibly too powerful for them to handle. Often times I can be describing something even semi-common, say a bugbear - my description on their gait, their eyes, even the way they look around and move their heads have my players thinking twice "this is a Bugbear, right?!?" Which is good, but they are so paranoid I just want to yell at them "why don't you attack the damn thing!"
Again, needing to keep reminding myself that
A) They don't want to die,
B) they are going on whatever information I am telling them or omitting so if there is a misunderstanding it is my failure as a DM to create the game space in their heads.
So every approach has its own ups and downs.
It would be nice to have a system that would (RAW) support both. Role-play out conversations with bonuses and minuses as they progress (something I do) while supporting those who don't feel as comfortable and just would rather leave it up the dice and their invested skill points.
It would be nice. But the problem, as I see it, is if you're simply going to leave it to dice and skill points. Why not play a board game, they're cheaper. You've already invest time, money and energy into it only to stop at the point that the game is all about? It doesn't add up to me.
I suppose you could have rules that are strictly for hack and slashers; but again, you're playing a board game at that point.
Look, I like roleplaying in moderation, is it really bad wrong fun to attempt to rp even if you aren't a great roleplayer and often use dice to fast forward through the boring stuff? The people I play with all enjoy a certain amount of rp, we have fun, none of us is great at it but once in a while we can play a character well enough that the other(s) get a good feel for the character being portrayed. That said I find that if I was straight jacketed to rping everything my character does down to taking a dump it would be exhaustive enough to adversely effect my level of enjoyment. Moderation in all things I say!
Why should I pretend to talk to that guy? I rolled a 20 on Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive?Indeed, that seems to be an attitude more and more people are going to. Needed interaction with NPCs has been cut drastically in favor of getting to the meat of the story, rather than savoring the flavor. Most role playing can be reduced to a die roll. Which is fine, I suppose, for those who are socially inept.
I do something similar to Dr. Deth, though I'm not as nice about it. You don't get to use the skills at all unless you actually try RPing to at least some degree. For example... Saying "I use diplomacy on the guard" nets you an auto fail. Saying "I walk up to the guard and strike up a conversation with him" nets you a negative. Saying something like "Guardsman! I need to speak with the count. It is a matter of the ut most urgency, there is an Ogre menace that requires his attention" will net you a regular roll and having proof on hand or a good standing with the court will give a bonus.
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do something similar to Dr. Deth, though I'm not as nice about it. You don't get to use the skills at all unless you actually try RPing to at least some degree.My God! How unreasonable of you! Requiring role-playing in a role-playing game?! Have you completely lost your mind?!
We must all just be old.
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.
|
|
Look, I like roleplaying in moderation, is it really bad wrong fun to attempt to rp even if you aren't a great roleplayer and often use dice to fast forward through the boring stuff? The people I play with all enjoy a certain amount of rp, we have fun, none of us is great at it but once in a while we can play a character well enough that the other(s) get a good feel for the character being portrayed. That said I find that if I was straight jacketed to rping everything my character does down to taking a dump it would be exhaustive enough to adversely effect my level of enjoyment. Moderation in all things I say!
Short answer - no it isn't wrong.
Longer answer -Try not to hit people with the "you're doing it wrong" stick. If people want to role-play more than you currently do (sans your dump example) then what the hell do you care? For some people the chance to RP is not something to consider "in Moderation" since they rarely get to play the game.
This isn't "Daenar has it right and everyone else is wrong" thread. If you like some simple RP supplemented by dice rolls and it works for you, run with it - you have found success! Try not to attack other play styles because they are too much or don’t fit your style.
I'm over that s%+$.
Whatever works for your group + they are happy is the right way.
DrDeth> To a degree, yes. If the socially inept introvert wants to play a silver tongued Charismatic guy, he needs to make an effort. I won't push someone like that to go into full SCA mode, but some effort is required. A description of the actions and steps you are taking, is a minimum. Not simply "I roll diplomacy". The desire is there, proof being that character that was made in the first place.If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?Requiring a minimum interaction with NPCs and that a player should (god forbid) role-play, is not the same thing.
So like I said: Circumstance bonuses/penalties are the DM's friend. If they just say "I use Diplomacy on the guard to get thru the gate" assign a -2, if they say "I walk up to the guard,chat with him a few minutes, drop the name of the Guards Commander casually into the conversation..." then assign a +2. Let them know this.
That +4 difference can make or break the deal. OTOH, if the Player is socially inept but really wants to play a Diplomancer, he still can. He can say " I use my Ks Nobility or Local check to see if there's anything to say that might help" so that gets a +0 (well, maybe even a +1 if that other check is really good).
So, Good roleplaying is rewarded, and good Rolls/building is also rewarded.
Simply "I roll diplomacy" and you should tell him that that gets him a -2, and suggest ways to make it better. If he starts using other skills in conjunction, and telling you WHY that would help, then that should be OK, if not great. I have found the socially inept can do that pretty well, they can learn to tell you what sort of things would help their roll and why. "Acting it out" is hard to get them to do and should not be forced.
Look, I like roleplaying in moderation, is it really bad wrong fun to attempt to rp even if you aren't a great roleplayer and often use dice to fast forward through the boring stuff? The people I play with all enjoy a certain amount of rp, we have fun, none of us is great at it but once in a while we can play a character well enough that the other(s) get a good feel for the character being portrayed. That said I find that if I was straight jacketed to rping everything my character does down to taking a dump it would be exhaustive enough to adversely effect my level of enjoyment. Moderation in all things I say!Short answer - no it isn't wrong.
Longer answer -Try not to hit people with the "you're doing it wrong" stick. If people want to role-play more than you currently do (sans your dump example) then what the hell do you care? For some people the chance to RP is not something to consider "in Moderation" since they rarely get to play the game.
This isn't "Daenar has it right and everyone else is wrong" thread. If you like some simple RP supplemented by dice rolls and it works for you, run with it - you have found success! Try not to attack other play styles because they are too much or don’t fit your style.
I'm over that s*#$.Whatever works for your group + they are happy is the right way.
Not attacking anyone. Saying pretty much what you did"live and let
Live". I will rp as much or as little as I like... but not to extremes because I am not an actor nor a straight up hackn slash board gamer. Seems the middle gets attacked most for not being extreme in either direction. Food for your thoughts.
I use the Take 10 approach to several skills, Perception being one of them. I tell my players ahead of time that I'll be using their "base" perception or whatever and just tell them when they notice something if they're not under duress. Then, if we're in combat or some kind of conflict threatens the party, I make them roll.
For example if my players are exploring the entry of a cave and they tell me up front they're being cautious then I note their base perception checks. If it's high enough to notice the signs of the trap in the hall (Perception DC 20) then I'll just tell them "You notice an odd flag in the floor" and just roll from there. Similarly if I know a wizard has invested skills in Knowledge: Arcana and comes upon some arcane runes on a door, I'll tell the player they are arcane in nature, in the tradition of the flame mages of Kithyar, and may in fact be enchanted.
I think where I fall down as a GM is I rarely add things JUST to add things; they usually have some kind of game impact. As a result my players have learned that, if I'm telling them something, it must somehow be a boon/threat to them. On the plus side they pay close attention but on the downside they tend to be very jaded.
I learned that lesson the day my party assaulted the perfectly innocent statues in a courtyard. Sometimes a statue is just a statue etc. I'm just glad they didn't murder some old woman saying she was a witch in disguise.
|
|
I think the part that I took as an attack may have been missed on your part:
That said I find that if I was straight jacketed to rping everything my character does down to taking a dump it would be exhaustive enough to adversely effect my level of enjoyment. Moderation in all things I say!
So I took this as an attack upon people who are heavily into RPing, if it wasn't then it was my mistake. I hope you can see how I could have come to that conclusion though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the options of 3e and pathfinder. I like complexity. But one easy way to make pathfinder feel like AD&D is to drop the map. Just this one change speeds up the game incredibly.
But what about flanking and sneak attack and all of the movement based parts of the game. For the most part you just say "I flank" or "I sneak attack". It works just fine. Now you have the complexity of Pathfinder with a game that plays a little more old school.
Similarly, roleplay your skills a little bit. Say where you search and how before you role, etc. As a GM give bonuses for well thought out strategies. You will soon have players using flower to look for air currents and spilling water to look for hidden pit traps! Just like the old days.
You are still playing Pathfinder but it feels different.
I love the options of 3e and pathfinder. I like complexity. But one easy way to make pathfinder feel like AD&D is to drop the map. Just this one change speeds up the game incredibly.
But what about flanking and sneak attack and all of the movement based parts of the game. For the most part you just say "I flank" or "I sneak attack". It works just fine. Now you have the complexity of Pathfinder with a game that plays a little more old school.
Similarly, roleplay your skills a little bit. Say where you search and how before you role, etc. As a GM give bonuses for well thought out strategies. You will soon have players using flower to look for air currents and spilling water to look for hidden pit traps! Just like the old days.
You are still playing Pathfinder but it feels different.
I love your play style and you have great advice. I do say that your avatar will be giving me nightmares for weeks. Yikes that reminds me of a guy I fished out of a lake one time. Two weeks in the lake....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned that lesson the day my party assaulted the perfectly innocent statues in a courtyard. Sometimes a statue is just a statue etc. I'm just glad they didn't murder some old woman saying she was a witch in disguise.
Sometimes too much Genre savvy can be a dangerous thing. ;-)
Half-naked sexy babe chained up in BBEG room? Succubus trap, every time.
As Hrun the barbarian said: "You find chokeapples under a chokeapple tree. You find treasure under altars.".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the options of 3e and pathfinder. I like complexity. But one easy way to make pathfinder feel like AD&D is to drop the map. Just this one change speeds up the game incredibly.
But what about flanking and sneak attack and all of the movement based parts of the game. For the most part you just say "I flank" or "I sneak attack". It works just fine. Now you have the complexity of Pathfinder with a game that plays a little more old school.
Similarly, roleplay your skills a little bit. Say where you search and how before you role, etc. As a GM give bonuses for well thought out strategies. You will soon have players using flower to look for air currents and spilling water to look for hidden pit traps! Just like the old days.
You are still playing Pathfinder but it feels different.
Exactly this. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.
And then DrDeth developed a split personality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this hobby it's hard not to develop a split personality. In fact it's probably an advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.And then DrDeth developed a split personality.
Doesn't he just view the "role" part of roleplaying differently than the standard boardspeak of "roleplaying means you are acting it out, not just rolling dice" - or am I having a moment here?
Granted, I thought DrDeth had developed a split personality when he started crusading for simulacrum and scry and fry to be clarified.
I love your play style and you have great advice. I do say that your avatar will be giving me nightmares for weeks. Yikes that reminds me of a guy I fished out of a lake one time. Two weeks in the lake....
Thanks I developed this style to play with my kids but it works just as well if you want a faster game...and I worked on a couple of Derro related projects last year and the little guy just stuck with me.
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.And then DrDeth developed a split personality.Doesn't he just view the "role" part of roleplaying differently than the standard boardspeak of "roleplaying means you are acting it out, not just rolling dice" - or am I having a moment here?
Granted, I thought DrDeth had developed a split personality when he started crusading for simulacrum and scry and fry to be clarified.
Yes, and the point is you can Rolepkay without acting. Acting can add to Rolepkaying but they are not the same thing.
Well, yes but,... After a while something foolish does have to be recognized and dealt with, after it becomes a trope, you can't just ignore it anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.And then DrDeth developed a split personality.
Those two are in no way contradictory. Really.
I why do you think they are?
You have a player who is a socially inept introvert, but he really wants to play a charismatic bard, why not? Sure, maybe he'll struggle a bit, or even a lot, but why penalize him for trying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually make my players throw some weight around on my bowflex if they want to power attack. Can't do 10 reps...no power attack for you!!! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that fair to the socially inept introvert who'd like to try running a silver tongued Charismatic guy once?
If a guy wants to play a barbarian with a 20 str, do you make him do pull ups for a STR check?
It *IS* a roleplaying game. One of the nice things in ROLEplaying is trying a character that doesn't match your IRL skill set. It's unfair to penalize that guy too much.And then DrDeth developed a split personality.Those two are in no way contradictory. Really.
I why do you think they are?
You have a player who is a socially inept introvert, but he really wants to play a charismatic bard, why not? Sure, maybe he'll struggle a bit, or even a lot, but why penalize him for trying?
As long as he's trying and wants to play it's the GM's job to help. It's hard to do a party 'face' right if you don't have some social chops.
I was a 'party face' once in a game where I was bargaining the shop keepers down and smooth talking the natives and the DM said, "Stop, your charisma's not that high!"
Helpful NPC cohort? Turncoat traitor waiting to betray you.Half-naked sexy babe chained up in BBEG room? Succubus trap, every time.
As Hrun the barbarian said: "You find chokeapples under a chokeapple tree. You find treasure under altars.".
Now I feel like I'm not doing it right. Most of my half-naked prisoners are just that. Half-naked prisoners. If they happen to be succubi, they're half-naked succubi prisoners. >_>
Plus my turncoat traitors suck at their jobs. One of them had a breakdown because the party was being so nice to them and confessed to being a spy sent with the party to track their moves, learn their weaknesses, and so forth. <_<
Amusingly the party took it pretty well and weren't mad with her so much as they were mad with her boss who was setting them up. Not sure why but for some reason they get attached to the oddest NPCs. :o
As an example, there is an NPC who has fought with them three times. Once trying to kill them, once trying to kidnap one of them, and once as an executioner of their friend. The party has been trying to save this NPC and is genuinely fond of the NPC so much so that they want to make her a member of their troupe. o_o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I feel like I'm not doing it right. Most of my half-naked prisoners are just that. Half-naked prisoners. If they happen to be succubi, they're half-naked succubi prisoners. >_>
Plus my turncoat traitors suck at their jobs. One of them had a breakdown because the party was being so nice to them and confessed to being a spy sent with the party to track their moves, learn their weaknesses, and so forth. <_<
Amusingly the party took it pretty well and weren't mad with her so much as they were mad with her boss who was setting them up. Not sure why but for some reason they get attached to the oddest NPCs. :o
As an example, there is an NPC who has fought with them three times. Once trying to kill them, once trying to kidnap one of them, and once as an executioner of their friend. The party has been trying to save this NPC and is genuinely fond of the NPC so much so that they want to make her a member of their troupe. o_o
You're not the only one 'doing it wrong', but I'll be darned if it doesn't seem like there's few enough of us. I had the distinct misfortune of playing under a DM who had that 'everything is a trap' problem before, although in his case it was 'everything is a Sivak draconian'. Darn annoying, those Sivak draconians.
But I'm usually surprised if an NPC or 5 isn't regularly on the PC's must-visit-to-chat list, or joins the party, or is someone that they buy gifts for at Yule and so on. I can't stand the 'everyone but a PC is a DM trap' method of playing, personally. I'm sure it works for some of course, just...not me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the options of 3e and pathfinder. I like complexity. But one easy way to make pathfinder feel like AD&D is to drop the map. Just this one change speeds up the game incredibly.
But what about flanking and sneak attack and all of the movement based parts of the game. For the most part you just say "I flank" or "I sneak attack". It works just fine. Now you have the complexity of Pathfinder with a game that plays a little more old school.
Similarly, roleplay your skills a little bit. Say where you search and how before you role, etc. As a GM give bonuses for well thought out strategies. You will soon have players using flower to look for air currents and spilling water to look for hidden pit traps! Just like the old days.
You are still playing Pathfinder but it feels different.
I've tred dropping the map before. Without it you have to define everything Very well. Otherwise you get:
players: "we open the door"
gm: "you see a Balor"
thief: "I sneak attack"
gm: "how? it can see you and there's no one flanking"
fighter: "I was flanking"
gm: "you haven't moved into the room yet"
fighter: "I always move into the room"
gm: "but you didn't tell me that's what you were doing"
wizard: "I cast disinagrate"
gm: "you were in the back of the party"
wizard: "I'm squeezing up front"
gm: "you have a rogue and a cleric and a fighter in front of you blocking most of your view"
cleric: "where's the cheetos?"
gm: "they're up in the cabinet where they always are"
wizard: "I hold and will let loose my spell when I have a better view"
cleric: "thanks"
gm: "where were we?"
fighter: "I was moving into the room"
rogue: "I was moving in to flank"
cleric: "crap, I left my mountain dew in the car"
gm: "dude, your turn is comming up"
cleric: "I'll be right back"
rogue: "I sneak attack"
wizard: "can I see it yet, the cleric is... umm, running off to get his flask"
gm: "I wish I had some sort of surface, with some sort of, measured counters to track movement...
Oh boy I remember those days! We switched to a grid in 3.0 and never looked back! Any hoot, One thing that does not help me recapture the old days is posting in advice to seek advice for a flavor character. If I was looking for cheese I'd get countless responses. Asking if my flavor character is viable? Might as well ask my coffee cup.
I use the Take 10 approach to several skills, Perception being one of them. I tell my players ahead of time that I'll be using their "base" perception or whatever and just tell them when they notice something if they're not under duress. Then, if we're in combat or some kind of conflict threatens the party, I make them roll.
For example if my players are exploring the entry of a cave and they tell me up front they're being cautious then I note their base perception checks. If it's high enough to notice the signs of the trap in the hall (Perception DC 20) then I'll just tell them "You notice an odd flag in the floor" and just roll from there. Similarly if I know a wizard has invested skills in Knowledge: Arcana and comes upon some arcane runes on a door, I'll tell the player they are arcane in nature, in the tradition of the flame mages of Kithyar, and may in fact be enchanted.
I think where I fall down as a GM is I rarely add things JUST to add things; they usually have some kind of game impact. As a result my players have learned that, if I'm telling them something, it must somehow be a boon/threat to them. On the plus side they pay close attention but on the downside they tend to be very jaded.
Sounds like someone needs to learn the gentle art of the red herring.
Giving people all the information they want and more then they NEED can lead to all sorts of fun stuff.
==Aelryinth