| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing I argued vehemently earlier about the need for additional roleplaying aspects to the APs, I figure I need to expand on this. I've been quiet (or quipping) long enough.
There are two reasons why I want additional roleplay elements in the APs. First, I feel newer GMs would benefit from this vivid reminder that there is more to the AP than grinding through encounters. Seriously, the APs end up being like playing one of those old fantasy computer games games where you select "Attack/Flee/Heal/Whatever" and each group fights. All the stats and combat tactics reinforce the viewpoint of "fight or flight" for these encounters.
Yes, experienced GMs can work around this and find the RP aspects available to any encounter - even one that is "fight to the death." But even experienced GMs like to have reminders about these options.
Second, I'm a creative. I enjoy writing and crafting stories. It's part of what I do. But it's not exactly easy to just come up with stuff on the fly. I can, and do. But often there is a catalyst involved, be it one of my players or some element in the adventure itself that suggests possible courses of action.
As such, expanding on roleplaying possibilities in the AP itself is in essence casting seeds that my creative talents can latch onto and create new stories. While it is doubtful my players will choose a specific course of action suggested in the AP, by giving options and roleplay solutions my imagination can expand from that and either adjust the given RP elements to what the players are doing... or crafting my own.
There is nothing more difficult to create from than the blank page. It is why fanfiction is so popular - you are taking someone else's page, someone else's world and characters, and expanding upon it. And while there is nothing more satisfying than creating your own world and characters and creating your own story... be it a novel or a campaign or even your own custom-built AP... not everyone has the time or talent to do this.
Having the APs with roleplay elements built into it and an integral part of it makes this a better product... and makes it easier and more enjoyable for GMs to shift the game away from killing and looting, and toward being a constructive part of this world the players are a part of.
Profuse apologies. You find fairly early on what you need to know, so I made assumptions. My bad entirely.
No problem. We tend to go in with low-information, because my fellow players have a habit of trying to avoid any dangerous confrontation until it is inevitable.
Absolutely, positively 100% agree with this one. Yes, it's a sore point with me as well trying to figure out ways to fit in NPCs with whom the players have developed relationships into later modules. In RotRL it was easy because of Sandpoint. In CotCT it was easy because of Korvosa. In other APs it was basically, "I hope your party has Teleport, because that's the only way you'll ever see XXX again..."
Good to see that we are in agreement about the points I made. ;)
Finally, I apologize you found our IM tone "insulting"; I felt it would be better to copy-and-paste the IMs directly rather than try to filter them. I constantly check in with other GMs as to things I am doing, and I felt that having one whom I defer to in most cases say, "No; they really could put in more," was worth sharing.
EDIT 2: And if the insult was from the "ancient guru" characterization, he's our local "that guy", so we take a great deal of pride in/love needling him about just how old he is. So it was tongue-in-cheek, but that virtually never comes across in text. Go figure.
It was more the implication that I somehow must be new at all of this. I am not, however I find myself with much less time nowadays than before.
It doesn't really matter, I very probably took it too personally when it wasn't meant as such.
Anyway, looks like your summary of what could be improved is awesome. Nicely stated!
Thank you!
EDIT: And for the record, we abandoned XP long ago because they really do seem to handcuff roleplaying. We brought in a couple of old-school D&Ders and they were amazing. "No; we have to kill the prisoners! We don't get XP unless they're dead!"
Just... wow!
Yeah, individual XP are more detrimental than helpful in my opinion, too.
It was an off putting statement Nobody... I too have over 30 years of GMing experience. But we're all on the same (ish) page here.
It is better to be constructive though. What is a better way to deal with info dumps? I'd say that due to the format that there will usually be times that PCs need a lot of information all at once. I actually liked the Q and A blocks in Wrath. With some foreshadowing and leading it wasn't that hard to have my PCs hit more than one of them. (some problems of course, not all were asked)
If there's a major NPC or two, would you like to see them continually updated at the end of the book? This could also contain ways that they could potentially grow... but there would be a lot, maybe too many, variables there. Also there's a danger of the Mary Sue NPC overtaking the game, which Irabeth is close to in book 1 of Wrath.
what i do with the Q&A parts they have is write down the questions they have on cards (well actually just scraps of paper) then hand them to the PCs and give them a couple minutes to figure out how they want to ask them, it might not be ideal, i'm not the biggest fan of scripted dialogue myself, but it does work well enough for us and sometimes can be quite fun:) but we are arent your typical bunch i guess so your mileage will vary:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the characters don't ask exactly those questions, the scripted answers generally include most of the relevant information and, done well, can give you an impression of the NPC's voice to work from, which a summary of "Things NPC knows" wouldn't.
Which is why I said that the "Information to impart" block should also contain a general description on how the NPC acts, so that GM's can work from that.
|
I wouldn't say that any of those solutions but the third one is unpopular. Actually, options one, two and four are things I'd want in AP's.The plethora of encounters is necessary to provide sufficient XP for characters to go up the requisite number of levels.
As far as I can see, there are three alternatives to this:
1) introducing story XP awards, however that means giving out what seems like a huge amount of XP just for making a successful diplomacy roll (for example),
2) raising the level of danger - i.e. fewer but more dangerous encounters,
3) reduce the number of levels that you go up in an AP.
I don't think any of these solutions is popular.
Richard
P.S. Actually there is a 4th solution - abandon the maths altogether and just have levelling up points.
I'm ok with (1) as long as it's balanced. What I've seen in APs, which seems to agree with the comments I've seen on these boards, is that the reward is out of proportion to the achievement.
I definately like (2), but again it would seem as if the APs are getting easier rather than harder (again, from reading comments on these forums).
(4) is something I recommend in my own adventures. Although I meticulously calculate out all the XP so that there's enough to raise 4 PCs up by one level, I then suggest afterwards that the whole XP total is awarded for completing the adventure however the PCs choose to do it.
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ok with (1) as long as it's balanced. What I've seen in APs, which seems to agree with the comments I've seen on these boards, is that the reward is out of proportion to the achievement.
Well, I must admit that I haven't been part of those discussions, so I can't really comment on what the situations where which have been discussed.
I definately like (2), but again it would seem as if the APs are getting easier rather than harder (again, from reading comments on these forums).
They have always been exceedingly easy after mid-level. The first two or three modules are the ones which contain the majority of difficult encounters, afterwards it gets ridiculously easy on 95% of things.
(4) is something I recommend in my own adventures. Although I meticulously calculate out all the XP so that there's enough to raise 4 PCs up by one level, I then suggest afterwards that the whole XP total is awarded for completing the adventure however the PCs choose to do it.
I just use the breakpoints indicated in the AP's nowadays. Tracking individual XP is an additional bother I don't need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted this on other threads, but I think it's worth expanding on here: My fundamental issue with XP is that many, many players associate them with video-game mentalities of, "Last person to hit gets the XP", or "You don't get the XP until the creature is destroyed."
I *love* having XP around because they give me a chance to reward PCs who do heroic things, or roleplay magnificently, or solve a problem in a novel manner. But in every single campaign where I've used XP, I've ended up with a violent group of murderhobos trying to defoliate vast swaths of land just so they can kill everything that comes out and get the XP for them. I've seriously had players saying, "I'm only 100 XP away from the next level. Let's search for secret doors. There must be something in here that'll put us up!"
In short, XP rewards murderhobodom by encouraging players to actively seek out things to kill.
And that's not the kind of game I want to GM.
So I got rid of XP and use the leveling points recommended in the AP and it works beautifully. Every non-murderhoboish player I've run has expressed his or her appreciation for this "new" system.
My one regret is not being able to reward heroic deeds. People keep telling me to use hero points instead, but considering my low death rate anyway (usually only one PC per module or so), letting them cheat death or reroll even more often seems a bit much.
I'll have to ponder, but I definitely have never regretted killing off XP.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted this on other threads, but I think it's worth expanding on here: My fundamental issue with XP is that many, many players associate them with video-game mentalities of, "Last person to hit gets the XP", or "You don't get the XP until the creature is destroyed."
I *love* having XP around because they give me a chance to reward PCs who do heroic things, or roleplay magnificently, or solve a problem in a novel manner. But in every single campaign where I've used XP, I've ended up with a violent group of murderhobos trying to defoliate vast swaths of land just so they can kill everything that comes out and get the XP for them. I've seriously had players saying, "I'm only 100 XP away from the next level. Let's search for secret doors. There must be something in here that'll put us up!"
In short, XP rewards murderhobodom by encouraging players to actively seek out things to kill.And that's not the kind of game I want to GM.
So I got rid of XP and use the leveling points recommended in the AP and it works beautifully. Every non-murderhoboish player I've run has expressed his or her appreciation for this "new" system.
My one regret is not being able to reward heroic deeds. People keep telling me to use hero points instead, but considering my low death rate anyway (usually only one PC per module or so), letting them cheat death or reroll even more often seems a bit much.
I'll have to ponder, but I definitely have never regretted killing off XP.
My issue with the whole "I want to use XP to reward players for doing awesome things, not just combat" school of thought, is similar to what you described here. That's how humans work - you present XP as a reward, a resource they need, and the players will start focusing on farming XP rather than the adventure itself.
Doing something awesome in a role playing game should be it's own reward. Why are we saving the king from the pirates? is it to restore peace in the kingdom of ThingPlace, or to net that sweet 1,200 story award XP bonus?
As for ways yo awarding your players for accomplishing awesome things - have you considered the medal mechanic from WotR? Simply award "medals" (represent them how you wish - minor blessings from a deity, actual badges of honor, whatever) - small mechanic bonuses that are given to a player who accomplished something great. Tricked the dragon into giving up his gold? give him the "medal of cunning" which imparts +1 on bluff checks. Jumped from a balcony into the flaming yard to save the cat? "medal of bravery", +1 on will saves against fear. The idea is small bonuses that wouldn't really shift the balance of the game but would make the players feel they did something exceptional.
Funny you should mention the medals...
My "core" group, who went through RotRL as the best group I've ever played with or run (as you said, they had no need for rewards to do their awesome RP) is now in WotR.
To my utter astonishment, the fighter is (only half-jokingly) trying to get all the medals. "Wait! Let it beat on me for a while! I need it to knock me to negative hit points and THEN you can heal me and we can kill it! That way I get a medal!"
*EXACTLY* what you said -- any reward that allows them to progress (even as little as +1 vs. fear) becomes a goal in and of itself, even if it does very little to alter the game.
I think I'm going to introduce Hero Points at the kids' game where anarchy is the rule and one poor guy tries to roleplay every situation (a LN kobold sorcerer, of all things) and we'll see how that goes. I suspect watching the kobold get a hero point every session or two is going to convince the others that maybe, just maybe, this whole 'roleplaying' thing is worth it.
My WotR group honestly does better without tangible rewards. They just loves them some roleplay...
@Nobody: After reading your issues with WotR RP, I had a few thoughts as to why you seemed to have so much more trouble than I did. (Note that this is not a condemnation or even a recommendation, I have little doubt you are a more practiced DM than me. I think this is a stylistic difference, and maybe this might give some ideas on how you can improve your game?)
You are correct that Wrath is paced to be very fast, and pushes you forward. However, I noted that there is one major opportunity this affords: There is a lot of open road between these encounters. Some of the best RP I got was during those "this corridor continues x feet before reaching area q" sections. At those points, I normally just had one of the NPC's talk about something (there are some good seeds in the NPC descriptions), and often as not we would get 20+ minutes of discussion out of it. That also provided a good sense of time passing, so there was an almost awkward tension to it, but in a 'nothing better to do' way, so it seemed to work.
The same thing can potentially happen in book 2, only this time with the army travel. Again, you have days of travel, so it's the perfect chance to break things up with a bit of joking around or off-hand comments. Also, there have been few things that caused a greater RP chain-reaction than
Also, since I was running the campaign as it was released, we had some time between books 1 and 2, so we had a session that was 90% RP, which probably made a big difference in making the NPC's matter.
Also, I agree with you, the revelations in book 3 were...lackluster at best. I really would've liked to have seen a lot more done with them, and actually did try to do so in my campaign. There also are probably too many 'attack on sight' fights. Most of the good interactions come from saving people from the 'attack on sight' types, or from capturing them after knocking them out (we had once character with an uncanny ability to knock foes to 0 HP)
Well, anyway, that's a quick-ish summary on why the RP in WotR worked well for me. Hopefully that helps!
<Lots of RP stuff>
I do greatly appreciate the input. My issue was the number of NPCs at once. In RotRL it was pretty much:
"We go to this shop.""This is the character you meet."
-20 minutes of RP with that NPC-
"We go to the next shop."
-20 more minutes of 1-on-1 RP-
The NPCs had clearly-defined locations and roles.
WotR is much more along the lines of:
"OK, among the half-dozen NPCs traveling with you right now, I suppose this one should talk to you a bit."
"Well, that's all well and good, but we're more interested in Aravashnial's take on that terrain over there."
*SIGH*
So it was that there were so many NPCs at once, thrown in a blender as it were, and the PCs got to pick and choose with whom they wanted to interact.
I'm fully rewriting the stories for Book 3. Should be fun. May one day show up in my campaign journal. (Kariss' player is sitting on the next installment but I'm hoping to get 2 up by Sunday evening.)