RPG systems are a journey, not the destination.

[Haladir]

I cut corners for GM prep whenever I can.

One of the big reasons I love story-games so much is that there's so little GM prep required to run a fun and satisfying game.

[World's most interesting Pan]

I like prep, but im also lazy. So my jam is taking modules, adventure paths, campaigns, settings, etc and putting my own spin on it. A lot of the foundation is there, but I can pick apart and rearrange or add as I see fit.

[Haladir]

The most recent spate of super-intense GM prep I did was for my last Pathfinder 1e campaign, Champions of Old Korvosa, which I ran from March 2014 - February 2016.

This campaign was a hodgepodge of different sources.

The basic framework of the adventure was the module The Reaping Stone by TPK Gamnes. I set it in Korvosa, about 5 years before the events of the "Curse of the Crimson Throne" adventure path. I changed a bunch of the specifics of the module to set it in Korvosa, including making the antagonist of the adventure to be a heretical priestess of Urgathoa, who had also tied in reverence of Runelord Zutha into her faith.

I didn't like the middle section of the published adventure (a trek through the Underdark), so I replaced that with some repurposed large sections of Edge of Anarchy, Seven Days to the Grave, Shards of Sin, and Curse of the Lady's Light. I also filled in a few other parts with bit-and-pieces of Paizo adventures Seven Swords of Sin, Mists of Mwangi, Feast of Sigils, and Shadow in the Sky, and also the non-Paizo adventures Streets of Zobeck and Hall of the Mountain King by (Kobold Press), and Dark Waters Rising by Raging Swan Press. And I wrote a bunch of encounter areas to tie these different sources together.

I was pretty proud of this adventure series, and my players had a great time, but... it was WAY too much work!

[World's most interesting Pan]

I hear ya. I ran Carrion Crown for two and a half years. I rewrote book 5 entirely, and that was a TON of work. The players fricken loved what I cam up with tho!

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

Interesting Character wrote:

Incorrect. You cast the spell and the spell is cast, no check required. To hit a target is a separate issue entirely, and hitting targets requires a check, a combat check addressed as a combat check, not a spell check.

To claim the spell does nothing completely ignores the narrative. What happens when you are holding the target when the spell is cast? Then there is no need to hit the target and therefore no check to hit required, and therefore no check at all, because casting the spell itself requires no check, only to hit a target, which is not a spell check, nor a magic check. Hitting a target is a combat check, handled like a combat check, and therefore discussed with combat checks.

So since I've been specifically referencing Rusting Grasp from 3.0, how can you cast while you're holding the target? I mean sure you could say you had one hand free. But to grab that target in combat would require a melee touch attack. So the spell doesn't work without the roll either prior to being cast or after being cast

Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 p.247
"You may employ rusting grasp in combat with a successful melee touch attack."

also

"Weapons in use by an opponent targeted by the spell are more difficult to grasp. You must succeed at a melee touch attack against the weapon. (See Strike a Weapon, page 136.) A metal weapon that is hit is instantaneously destroyed. Note: Striking at an opponent’s weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, you must touch the weapon and not the other way around."

So outside of combat sure the spells has effects without a roll. But in combat you have to have a roll. So for the spell to take effect, it needs a roll of a d20. I believe those are called checks.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Whether I'm running or playing, I like low power level characters. I know, story games aren't concerned with power levels of PCs and I should probably be playing more of them.

What I like about those normal folks though is being an underdog, or seeing the players at my tables be them. Like, the longest running Marvel game I had in my 30's involved homemade heroes defending the streets of Chicago, none of whom had a score or power better than Incredible; my favorite WW game I played in, we were all Garou Kinfolk (normal humans with some minor werewolf type power) going around as supernatural hunters.

The best part of any PF1 game I run is between levels 1-8. After that it gets SUPER tedious to me as a GM. I've only had the chance to play once in the past few years, and we only made it to level 8 so I don't really know what playing at high level is like, but running it is boring to me.

As for prepping... I LOVE it! But I'm old school; I make a whole event out of it. I clear the dining room table, except my laptop on one side and a big stack of books on the other. I roll actual dice in the old AD&D 1e DMG, on the random dungeon generator tables. I flip through a couple dusty old copies of Grimtooth for inspiration on my Room 2/RP Challenge or Trap. The whole time I've got a stereo running some kind of background music just a step up from white noise.

I think one of the reasons why I like PF1 is that, as part of my prepping, I usually try and take one NPC, trap, or obstacle and just optimize the heck out of it! But in this, I usually start with an abysmally meek starting point, like trying to make the most OP pit trap or the toughest Kobold Adept 5/Warrior 4 as a CR 6 threat.

This all helps illustrate why Bilbo Baggins is STILL my favorite hero in literature and why every Magic the Gathering deck I've ever built centers around the "mean weenies" style of play.

[World's most interesting Pan]

I struggle with how folks use the word heroic. Some folks say things like, "I dont like X system because at low levels I can't tear the heads off goblins without breaking a sweat. It just doesnt feel heroic." At some point, probably from the comic book term "Super Hero", folks started to equate heroism with ability. For me, heroic means sticking your neck out to do good things, or dangerous things others won't/can't, and living to tell about it.

I mean, if you are bullet proof, and can bend steel with your hands, hell can even fly, are you really heroic for doing things that cant hurt you? You ought to be doing them anyways, that's just normal for you.

[Interesting Character]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Incorrect. You cast the spell and the spell is cast, no check required. To hit a target is a separate issue entirely, and hitting targets requires a check, a combat check addressed as a combat check, not a spell check.

To claim the spell does nothing completely ignores the narrative. What happens when you are holding the target when the spell is cast? Then there is no need to hit the target and therefore no check to hit required, and therefore no check at all, because casting the spell itself requires no check, only to hit a target, which is not a spell check, nor a magic check. Hitting a target is a combat check, handled like a combat check, and therefore discussed with combat checks.

So since I've been specifically referencing Rusting Grasp from 3.0, how can you cast while you're holding the target? I mean sure you could say you had one hand free. But to grab that target in combat would require a melee touch attack. So the spell doesn't work without the roll either prior to being cast or after being cast

Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 p.247
"You may employ rusting grasp in combat with a successful melee touch attack."

also

"Weapons in use by an opponent targeted by the spell are more difficult to grasp. You must succeed at a melee touch attack against the weapon. (See Strike a Weapon, page 136.) A metal weapon that is hit is instantaneously destroyed. Note: Striking at an opponent’s weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, you must touch the weapon and not the other way around."

So outside of combat sure the spells has effects without a roll. But in combat you have to have a roll. So for the spell to take effect, it needs a roll of a d20. I believe those are called checks.

Do you need a roll to swing a sword? Not to hit someone, but to just walk along and swing your sword in front of you, need a roll for that?

What you seem too blind to see is that an attack roll has nothing to do with the weapon. As far as attack rolls are concerned, it doesn't matter whether you are attacking with a sword or a spell, thus is it's own thing. When you use rusting grasp, you cast the spell without a roll, then you make an attack with it at which point you leave the spell and enter the metaphorical realm of attack rolls, and once that is done and you know whether the target was hit or not, you then go back to the spell to figure out the effects.

Thus, the attack roll is a different mechanic and is not about the spell at all.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

But to figure the results of the spell you have to hit with the dice, you said so. So the effects of the spell are determined by a check on the d20. They cannot in combat be determined without that check on the d20. The spell just sits there as if it was never cast.

[Interesting Character]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

But to figure the results of the spell you have to hit with the dice, you said so. So the effects of the spell are determined by a check on the d20. They cannot in combat be determined without that check on the d20. The spell just sits there as if it was never cast.

You speak like the only results that matter are the mechanical ones. This is fundamentally false. This needs to be fundamentally false to be an rpg and not simply a minutures tactics game.

Further, the attack roll does not determine the spell's effects, it determines whether the spell hits a target when it might miss for some reason. The attack roll cares not about the spell nor it's effects, the attack roll is exclusively about whether the target had been struck or not. No magic rolls, nor lack of them, cares about that.

It is a simulationist system, that means that each check represents something that affects the outcome, not the outcome itself. The attack roll represents the attempt to hit an opponent, not the outcome of such an attempt.

A counter-example is the genesys star wars game, where the roll represents the outcome itself, hence why the boons/banes work well, because boons/banes are not about the aspects affecting the attack, they are about the results of the attack.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

But not in combat. No roll. No effect.

[Interesting Character]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

But not in combat. No roll. No effect.

Doesn't make a difference. Out of combat but trying to snatch some elusive device would be out of combat but could still require an attack check. On the other hand, in combat, friends grapple and pin someone then you cast the spell on them, in combat but no check.

That is just the mechanics, don't forget the narrative. That is no less important than the mechanics.

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I struggle with how folks use the word heroic. Some folks say things like, "I dont like X system because at low levels I can't tear the heads off goblins without breaking a sweat. It just doesnt feel heroic." At some point, probably from the comic book term "Super Hero", folks started to equate heroism with ability. For me, heroic means sticking your neck out to do good things, or dangerous things others won't/can't, and living to tell about it.

I mean, if you are bullet proof, and can bend steel with your hands, hell can even fly, are you really heroic for doing things that cant hurt you? You ought to be doing them anyways, that's just normal for you.

Agreed. In my opinion, a character is "heroic" when they risk their own safety or well-being for the sake of somebody else.

It's not really heroic if you're only doing it for a tangible reward, or if what you're doing poses no risk to yourself.

Superman flying up to rescue a cat stuck in a tree is being nice and/or helpful, but isn't being heroic.

Clark Kent publishing an investigative journalism series in the Daily Planet which revealed that the Mayor of Metropolis has been receiving kickbacks from LexCorp in exchange for not enforcing the city's environmental regulations is heroic.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Haladir wrote:

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I struggle with how folks use the word heroic. Some folks say things like, "I dont like X system because at low levels I can't tear the heads off goblins without breaking a sweat. It just doesnt feel heroic." At some point, probably from the comic book term "Super Hero", folks started to equate heroism with ability. For me, heroic means sticking your neck out to do good things, or dangerous things others won't/can't, and living to tell about it.

I mean, if you are bullet proof, and can bend steel with your hands, hell can even fly, are you really heroic for doing things that cant hurt you? You ought to be doing them anyways, that's just normal for you.

Agreed. In my opinion, a character is "heroic" when they risk their own safety or well-being for the sake of somebody else.

It's not really heroic if you're only doing it for a tangible reward, or if what you're doing poses no risk to yourself.

Superman flying up to rescue a cat stuck in a tree is being nice and/or helpful, but isn't being heroic.

Clark Kent publishing an investigative journalism series in the Daily Planet which revealed that the Mayor of Metropolis has been receiving kickbacks from LexCorp in exchange for not enforcing the city's environmental regulations is heroic.

Seconded. I actually miss folks being heroes in games. It's gotten to the point in one of my PF games I set a rule of having Good as an alignment component and have actually had to enforce it once.

I don't need super heroes in the sense that they're indestructible/all-powerful. I don't even need them to be selfless boy scouts. Just once in a while look at the NPCs in the game as mere game sprites or villains as something more than sacks of loot and experience.

Y'know what I think is funny? I've asked players in my games to be a bit more heroic and even now have a "good" game running. Its a stretch for my players to RP that without falling into murder-hobo tropes. Then when I ask them what are they watching, what are they reading, what other games are they playing... they all hone in on really character driven media, specifically centered around gritty anti-heroes that make tough choices but ultimately save lives.

So... you love WATCHING heroes, but if given free choice to be one or not, you'd rather pretend to be a murder-hobo. Got it.

Sorry, I'll get off my anecdotally-constructed soapbox now.

[World's most interesting Pan]

Brings it back to system. Pathfinder/D&D doesn't have to be a murder loot fest, but so much attention is put on combat and gear. Its sort of like swimming upstream to move out of that mindset. It's not solely the systems fault, many players have fallen into a general expectation too.

What type of system features do you like that promote player co-op? Also, what systems do you like that allow characters to act alone, without strong teamwork requirements, that allows the game to proceed in a way that allows for everyone equal spotlight time?

[thejeff]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Seconded. I actually miss folks being heroes in games. It's gotten to the point in one of my PF games I set a rule of having Good as an alignment component and have actually had to enforce it once.

I don't need super heroes in the sense that they're indestructible/all-powerful. I don't even need them to be selfless boy scouts. Just once in a while look at the NPCs in the game as mere game sprites or villains as something more than sacks of loot and experience.

Y'know what I think is funny? I've asked players in my games to be a bit more heroic and even now have a "good" game running. Its a stretch for my players to RP that without falling into murder-hobo tropes. Then when I ask them what are they watching, what are they reading, what other games are they playing... they all hone in on really character driven media, specifically centered around gritty anti-heroes that make tough choices but ultimately save lives.

So... you love WATCHING heroes, but if given free choice to be one or not, you'd rather pretend to be a murder-hobo. Got it.

It's possible they're aiming for the gritty anti-hero, but failing. It's harder to get right than it seems. Especially with PF pushing the mercenary/loot approach.

[dirtypool]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Y'know what I think is funny? I've asked players in my games to be a bit more heroic and even now have a "good" game running. Its a stretch for my players to RP that without falling into murder-hobo tropes. Then when I ask them what are they watching, what are they reading, what other games are they playing... they all hone in on really character driven media, specifically centered around gritty anti-heroes that make tough choices but ultimately save lives.

I guess my question here would be to ask if your "good" game is structured in a way that promotes a character driven narrative designed to have the players make the tough choices that resemble the ones made in the media they're consuming? Or is it built more around the standard "heroic" tropes of role playing games?

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What type of system features do you like that promote player co-op? Also, what systems do you like that allow characters to act alone, without strong teamwork requirements, that allows the game to proceed in a way that allows for everyone equal spotlight time?

It seems I'm often playing the advocate for Genesys/Star Wars - but here we are. Genesys' combat works around each players initiative generating a team slot that can be used by any of the players. It encourages a negotiation over who goes first. For example, in our current Weird West campaign we had a run in with an antagonist designed for my character. I rolled the second highest initiative but it made sense for me to act first in the first round - so I took the top spot. In the second round we altered our order slightly to make better use of team resources.

As the system is designed for this - play doesn't slow down much because of it.

You build your dice pool around your ability and your skill and any conditions providing either a positive or negative effect upon the outcome of your attempt, once you've resolved the role you may have successes and advantages. Advantages can be spent either to activate additional abilities OR can be passed to other players to augment their roll. Coupled with the initiative slot, and the Story Point mechanic (a pool of points allowing re-rolls and enhancements that is available to the entire party to spend) this creates a combat phase that is not only built around teamwork - but one that falters a bit in the absence of teamwork.

[thejeff]

I do think there's a common and valid dual usage of "heroic" for both what we'd normally think of as "heroism" and as more of a genre marker - "heroic fantasy". Which tends to feature heroism, but also tends to feature powerful characters involved in bigger event rather than gritty normal types trying to survive in the sewers and back alleys.

More significantly though, "heroism" is essentially a story thing. It happens in real life, but usually mostly by accident. It's strongly discouraged in the military because heroic attempts outside of fiction usually end badly.

In games it's generally more similar to real life. Heroic deeds that present real risks to the characters can't happen often, because if the risk is real, failures will be too common. Most players don't enjoy routine character deaths and TPKs. They'll react to them by playing more cautiously and less heroically.
That's natural. Reward the behavior you want to see. Punish behavior you don't want. But that doesn't work when the behavior you want is high-risk without reward.

The general way rpgs handle it is by presenting the illusion of risk. In PF1 even Epic encounters are supposed to be significantly weaker than the party. The odds are stacked in your favor, even though the narrative may paint it otherwise.

I'm not sure there's a better way to handle it.

[thejeff]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What type of system features do you like that promote player co-op? Also, what systems do you like that allow characters to act alone, without strong teamwork requirements, that allows the game to proceed in a way that allows for everyone equal spotlight time?

The only game I've really played that expects characters to act alone without teamwork requirements is Amber. And even then you usually team up for the climaxes (or the climaxes are factions of PCs fighting each other.)

Spotlight time there is basically pushed on to the GM's shoulders without much mechanical support. It's hard to do otherwise if the PCs really are working independently. And it requires some serious handwaving to do, especially when some might be engaging in detailed stuff like combat or negotiations, while others are doing more downtimey business.

[Mark Hoover 330]

dirtypool wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Y'know what I think is funny? I've asked players in my games to be a bit more heroic and even now have a "good" game running. Its a stretch for my players to RP that without falling into murder-hobo tropes. Then when I ask them what are they watching, what are they reading, what other games are they playing... they all hone in on really character driven media, specifically centered around gritty anti-heroes that make tough choices but ultimately save lives.

I guess my question here would be to ask if your "good" game is structured in a way that promotes a character driven narrative designed to have the players make the tough choices that resemble the ones made in the media they're consuming? Or is it built more around the standard "heroic" tropes of role playing games?

I guess I don't really know what the standard heroic tropes for games are as opposed to other media. The "good" game is a PF homebrew I made as an homage to elements of Kingmaker.

PCs begin in Valyg's Crossing, a large lake port (Small City settlement) that is one of the few survivors of a global calamity that returned much of the region to overgrown wilderness. Initially they're explorers and members of an adventurer's guild, with missions being geared to levels 1-3. Since there is lots of wilderness to re-explore as the kingdom works to reclaim lost lands and unite disparate settlements that may yet survive, they encounter lots of fey, magical beasts, reawakened dragons and hapless creatures turned into aberrations by the waning energies released during the calamity.

So then the "heroic" situations I've thrown out there have been defending townsfolk against racism as well as monsters, presenting the opportunity to redeem an enemy alchemist, certain fey such as the Gravesworn Sprites that aren't evil, or particularly chaotic, but they have a wildly different outlook than the PCs on matters of death and burial.

So in the face of a racist lord of a settlement... PCs chose not to engage. When the Gravesworn came along to "steal" the corpse of an NPC they were murdered out of hand because monsters. They DID choose to lock up instead of executing the villainous alchemist, but their only interaction with her since has been to visit her in prison, use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks on her, and get her to divulge info on her former evil alchemist associates so that they can defeat the group.

I think the lack of heroism in this game is partially logistics - in the before times we met 3.5 hours a week on a Thursday night to play this game, not leaving much time for roleplaying, story development and such. Another part though has to do with heroism flowing from roleplaying and story engagement.

In any crunchy system, a Player Character is a collection of numbers meant to be increasingly better at accomplishing mechanical tasks, such as skill use, combat, magic or power usage, etc. Unless you're using a device such as hero points, there's no real "be a hero" skill or mechanic in many games, such as in PF1.

So, with 3.5 hours on a given game night and players who really enjoy the dice rolling and combat aspects of my game, when presented with narrative choices, it's more efficient to use the mechanics to resolve them.

Ironically though, way back 2 years ago when the game first started, the PCs ran across Little Bertha and still love her. She is a 9 year old human girl but since the mission at the time involved hunting down an aberration and it tied back to an aberrant-worshipping cult, I gave her a mutated arm, facial deformities that gave her a lisp, and poor Bertha was the town outcast, literally living in the woods.

I say "ironically" b/c these players who have to be reminded to be heroic found Little Bertha hiding among some undergrowth and spying on them. They decided to speak to her in character rather than make a Diplomacy check. What ensued was some truly epic roleplaying, culminating in the entire party sticking up for Bertha to her bullies and going out of their way to build her a home on the outskirts of the town.

None of that happened from any prompting from me and I heaped praise on the players as well as rewarding their characters. Whenever they head back to Vulghynstadt, the swamp town that Little Bertha is from, they are considered heroes, they eat and drink for free in the inn, and if they need to cross the great marsh lake for any reason they have but to ask one of the local trawler captains and they have free passage guaranteed.

Personally, I think the ONLY reason the players engaged with Little Bertha is b/c they thought it was funny, or cool or whatever that, in order to RP her, I crouch sideways, hang one arm heavily towards the floor and speak with a drooling lisp, all while trying to affect a little girl's voice and mannerisms.

[Haladir]

dirtypool wrote:

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What type of system features do you like that promote player co-op? Also, what systems do you like that allow characters to act alone, without strong teamwork requirements, that allows the game to proceed in a way that allows for everyone equal spotlight time?

It seems I'm often playing the advocate for Genesys/Star Wars - but here we are.

I still haven't played Genesys, but it's on my "want to try" list.

In terms of character cooperation, there's an online table technique that I've become extremely fond of: the Character Keeper. This is a shared online character sheet that has all of the play stats for all of the characters. All of the players can see what makes the other characters tick, which gives players a lot of information about how to set up scenes and situations that another character can take advantage of.

As for games where the PCs are not expected to be working together at all times...

There are quite a few of those. Two older ones that come to mine are the aforementioned Amber Diceless Role-Playing Game and Ars Magica. In the latter, it is assumed that wizards are by nature solitary sorts and only convene on rare occasions. Consequently, the game has every player make multiple characters: a Wizard, and also a number of "grogs," non-magical characters that are the retainers and henchmen of wizards. This allows party-based play to revolve around a single Wizard at at time.

The modern-day political urban fantasy game Urban Shadows has protagonist characters that belong to different factions, and are consequently seldom all in the same scene.

Legacy: Life Among the Ruins has an interesting gameplay experience: Each player runs both a large-scale faction (called a "Family") that operates on a regional scale, and also an Agent character, who is an individual representative who goes off on missions. Much like in Ars Magica, there are also subordinate characters who will adventure with an Agent, giving the players of other Factions someone to run when an Agent is off doing their thing without rival Agents being present. The game also has an "Turn of the Age" mechanic, which advances the clock on the scale of years or decades, allowing the Faction to grow and evolve... and players to create new Agents.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I have a super limited field of experience compared to all of you, but I always found super hero games such as Marvel or V&V to be more geared towards team stuff and heroics. Any game that incentivizes the players mechanically to DEFEAT their enemies, not KILL them.

TMNT was a good one for this too. All the players are mutant animals, so they have to rely on each other socially (unless you're running in a setting where EVERYONE is mutants, such as the After the Bomb supplement). Also, while the original turtles DID murder their enemies, they were ostensibly still martial arts heroes straight out of 80's tropes and that style carried through into the game. Think Frank Miller's Daredevil, but with mutant animals not blind super heroes.

As for a good one to spotlight individual PCs... look no further than the original White Wolf stuff for Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, and so on. Every character is meant to be a special snowflake with RP elements such as Merits and Flaws baked right into the mechanics. The PCs form a team, in that they're supernatural beings in an otherwise gritty but realistic society, but each one had plenty of character build options to make them all unique.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Also, Haladir, one thing I'm borrowing from you (and likely, I imagine, this is a technique from story gaming) for my PF games is the phrase "tell me what that LOOKS like."

2 PF game sessions ago the fire wizard made an attack with a Scorching Ray that critted and he confirmed. At the exact same moment (same initiative mechanically) his Dimminutive Dragon familiar breathed a cone of flame on the same enemy and he rolled max damage for the breath weapon.

We were playing over Zoom and for years I've managed the descriptions of fight scenes as the GM. This time though, I just didn't feel like it so I turned to the player's window on screen and said "Ok, tell me what all of that LOOKS like?"

He was dumbfounded, taken completely off guard, but when he laid out how his ray hit the apex of the breath weapon and it flared into this massive blast of heat and fire that obliterated the gnoll he was attacking, he was kind of smiling. After the game that ended up being the highlight for that player.

Since then I've tried to work the phrase into the game. I've done it with that scene, a Trample action from a sacred mount and a really bad fail on an Acrobatics check. So far no complaints and our next session is tomorrow, so I'm going to keep trying this.

[dirtypool]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I guess I don't really know what the standard heroic tropes for games are as opposed to other media. The "good" game is a PF homebrew I made as an homage to elements of Kingmaker.

It's a question, predominantly, of tone. When I say "standard heroic tropes" I'm talking about things that are applicable to all forms of media.

A player wanting to portray a character like The Punisher or Wolverine might feel out of place in a storyline designed for a Captain America or Spiderman. They would be certainly capable of achieving the same objectives - but perhaps not in the same way.

This is the same way that a Conan type character might feel out of place in an adventure intended for an Aragorn.

The actions your describe your player characters taking don't sound particularly out of place in a character driven narrative for anti-heroes - but very out of place in a narrative centered around an unflinchingly moral set of heroes like the Knights of the Round Table.

I would wonder if it isn't a mismatch of expectations - with you wanting one type of heroic narrative and them wanting another.

[World's most interesting Pan]

Birthright is probably the closest ive seen to a system that gives each player their own space. Its basically like Game of Thrones but each player takes over a house. Each season you gain a certain amount of points to build ships, cast magic, etc. It's competitive, co-op I suppose for players who want to ally. Though the nature of it isnt PVP like typical TTRPGs. You are trying to thwart the advancement of others agendas and they same to you. Its messy, and not elegant like the classic board game Diplomacy.

I've wanted to get into a good Birthright game forever. I have a friend (running Carbon 2185 right now) who loves BR. Though, I run into problems with this GM. He has a bad habit of dropping a campaign on the players and then handing over the keys. That works for a little bit, but then the players start looking for some GM guidance and they get none. Eventually, every one gets frustrated (GM included) and game falls apart.

[Haladir]

Mark Hoover wrote:

Also, Haladir, one thing I'm borrowing from you (and likely, I imagine, this is a technique from story gaming) for my PF games is the phrase "tell me what that LOOKS like."

It's a really powerful technique that is indeed from story-games, but I'm seeing it more and more in trad games: Basically, when the PC succeeds, ask the player to tell us what that success looks like.

(I noticed that Crystal Frasier started using that technique when she GMs the "War for the Crown" PF1 actual play podcast over on the Know Direction Network.)

It may well throw some players for a bit of a loop (as you experienced), but once they realize that you've handed them narrative control for that aspect of the scene, most players really relish the opportunity.

It took me well over a year to get out of the habit of always describing things as the GM, though!

But now... "What does that look like?" has to be my second-most frequently used phrase when I GM.

(It's a distant second to "What do you do?")

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

Birthright is probably the closest ive seen to a system that gives each player their own space. Its basically like Game of Thrones but each player takes over a house. Each season you gain a certain amount of points to build ships, cast magic, etc. It's competitive, co-op I suppose for players who want to ally. Though the nature of it isnt PVP like typical TTRPGs. You are trying to thwart the advancement of others agendas and they same to you. Its messy, and not elegant like the classic board game Diplomacy.

I've wanted to get into a good Birthright game forever. I have a friend (running Carbon 2185 right now) who loves BR. Though, I run into problems with this GM. He has a bad habit of dropping a campaign on the players and then handing over the keys. That works for a little bit, but then the players start looking for some GM guidance and they get none. Eventually, every one gets frustrated (GM included) and game falls apart.

I wasn't familiar with Birthright and had to look it up. You mean the TSR campaign setting for AD&D 2e?

I played AD&D 2e from its 1989 release until my group got tired of D&D/fantasy and transitioned primarily to GURPS as our system of choice in 1992 or so. I pretty much ignored the D&D space from then until 3.0 came out in 2001. The big innovation I really liked about AD&D 2e was the introduction of specialist character builds, such as specialist wizards, custom spell lists for clerics by deity, and "class kits" (i.e. class archetypes).

What mechanics did Birthright have that allowed faction-level play in AD&D 2e?

[World's most interesting Pan]

Im not an expert in Birthright, ive only played in a couple short lived campaigns. Though, from what I did experience each player rules a house or governs domain territory. Their is some type of magic in your character's blood thats a little different than typical D&D play. Spells tend to be more like rituals that are far more powerful. Each season you make decisions on raising armies and building ships. It reminds me a little of diplomacy but its far more complicated.

[Haladir]

If anyone is interested in checking out my GM style and/or playing in a rules-light, dark fantasy story-game, I'm looking for players.

[World's most interesting Pan]

Ah, Thursdays are no good for me but ill keep an eye out!

[World's most interesting Pan]

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

[thejeff]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

Closer to the latter, though it doesn't necessarily have to be to the point of branding.

My experience is that games end up supporting a style regardless of intent and it's better if that's clear up front rather than being hidden so that players try to make it work for things it doesn't really function well for. Mechanics matter.

You can certainly get a bit broader or very specific, but there's a limit on how generic you can go.

[Interesting Character]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

I think it depends on the general style of system. If you go for a more narrative style, such as what Haladir advocates, then a more specific and dedicated system is better, but if you do a more osric style, exploration, sandbox, etc, then a more modular style is better.

Additionally, another factor is whether a long term group runs many different campaigns across different genres and different foci, then a more modular system allows them to more freely explore the different possibilities without needing a learn a brand new system for every campaign, and also makes it easier for them to be surprised by elements of a new campaign because the mechanics weren't dedicated to those elements, something which can be anywhere from very good to very bad depending on the gm.

In some games however, you want a really strong sense if atmosphere, and dedicated system can do that better.

Tldr, it boils down to what you want to achieve and what the circumstances are to determine which is better.

[dirtypool]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

I've read similar complaints about PF2's style of play being so specifically ingrained in the system that it could really only be played within that style. I'm not sure that's true. You absolutely can loosen your grip on the tactical components of the game and delve into a more narrativistic style. Our group plays two different Pathfinder games, and one of our GM's plays a lot of PFS. The PFS style, the other GM's style and my style are three different takes on the application of the system and none of those are so imbalanced as to make the game unplayable.

Narrative tones being altered in different ways is perfectly viable as well. Published AP's show the flexibility of standard fantasy tropes, or beat cop detective stories in Edgewatch - tooling the style to fit different narrative styles doesn't seem all that difficult.

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

I've read similar complaints about PF2's style of play being so specifically ingrained in the system that it could really only be played within that style. I'm not sure that's true. You absolutely can loosen your grip on the tactical components of the game and delve into a more narrativistic style. Our group plays two different Pathfinder games, and one of our GM's plays a lot of PFS. The PFS style, the other GM's style and my style are three different takes on the application of the system and none of those are so imbalanced as to make the game unplayable.

I think what is being referenced is not about combat tactics vs narrative, but rather that paizo focuses heavily on the power fantasy of being fantastical superheroes, compared to something like an rpg version of a horror film or a detective story, ideas where players are normal people.

[avr]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I've seen some discussions lately around how modular a system is and/or should be. One argument I saw was that PF2 is too specific to its playstyle and that hurts the system over all. 5E was sold during playtest as being modular so it could fit any era playstyle. Thats a huge goal and as we saw with the final product it didnt quite end up as initially described.

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

If you know a system well you can make it do things it was never designed for, but if you're coming to a system new IMO you're probably better off using it how it was intended. Planning and ambushes in Shadowrun, straight-up combat in PF2, investigation and staying out of fights in Call of Cthulhu.

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What do you expect from an RPG system? Do you want a modular system that can encompass many styles? Like old shcool swingy resource attrition play, and/or modern power up'd ability and tactical combat play. Or do you expect a particular style of play, a branding if you will, that promotes a style over a generic toolbox?

I try to make a distinction between "system" and "game." In my mind, I see "system" as the baseline mechanical elements of an RPG, where the "game" is the sum of the mechanics, genre, in-world lore, and play practices/table culture.

My favorite RPGs have all been specifically designed to provide a specific play experience, that's usually tied pretty tightly to the game's intended genre or subgenre.

Even if a given game is using a more modular rules framework as its baseline, the designer needs to specialize the rules for their specific design goals to provide the kind of game they intend to provide.

For example, Fate Core, straight out of the box, is only about 85% of a game: The GM needs to set a LOT of specific parameters for what they want to run before play can begin. This includes deciding whether the game will use Approaches vs. Skills, what the skill list should be, how SFX work (i.e. magic, cyberwear, psionics, hi-tech), how Stunts will work, how dynamic the Fate Point economy is going to be, and other genre constraints. If you want to just play, that's where their Fate Worlds of Adventure line comes in: These are fully-baked games that use the Fate system.

You can say the same of d20/OGL: The same underlying system powers a diverse array of games, from Pathfinder to Mutants & Masterminds.

[Haladir]

PbtA game designer Jeremy Strandberg just posted an excerpt from the GM section of his forthcoming fantasy RPG Stonetop.

This is gold: It's the best summary of how to GM a "Powered by the Apocalypse" RPG that I've ever come across!

Definitely worth taking a few minutes to read!

[World's most interesting Pan]

Greetings Paizo boarders,

I recently started in a PF2 Abomination Vaults AP. I wanted a chance to kick the tires on the PF2 system. I started really taking a hard look at actions, feats, proficiency and chances of success. The math of PF2 is much tighter than PF1, also your ability to improve chances of success are few and far between. However, with the 3 action economy failing actions like a feint, a trip, or an intimidation is less painful because you still have two more actions. A nice feature since in 3E/PF1 often you had to decide between tripping a target, and attacking a target. Low chance of success made it feel more like losing a turn.

I think of this dynamic in other games like Dungeon Crawl Classics. This OSR game allows casters to use their spells all day long as long as they dont blow a caster check. This gives a more press your luck feel than a resource attrition method of typical D&D games. In Traveller, you can use actions and initiative to improve checks and chances, which usually have their own drawbacks in weakened defense or some other form. Here, players are given some control over their chances during gameplay as opposed to during chargen.

So how do you good folks prefer things to work? Tight math with consistent results, changed infrequently through some type of leveling process? Or, perhaps methods put in the hands of the players to try and manage their own chances through risk and reward type decisions? A little of both, or something else?

-Cheers

[Mark Hoover 330]

I literally only know PF1 among those you mention Magic Pan, so I'm probably out of this discussion. I will say though that for years it irked me that Intimidate is a Standard action in PF1. I ended up houseruling it to a Move action so that a PC can add it to an attack and not take up their whole combat round just being scary.

In general though, I prefer game systems that work off of resource attrition than what you so perfectly term "press your luck" type mechanics. Being a player, if you're really into your character and the game, can be scary enough. One missed save, or one red shift on you, or whatever and you're at the very least knocked out of the action if not completely destroyed.

At least with resource attrition mechanics you know, definitively, that your character can do these three things, a few times a day or whatever, and they're going to do "X," whatever that is. Could be that your PC has Fire Generation/Remarkable - all day long they can shoot fire that deals 26 points of Energy damage, every time. Or it could be that your Paladin can Smite Evil twice/day, and all that that entails, but you KNOW you can count on either of those things doing what's stated.

If I had an ability where it MIGHT work, so long as I keep making a check which in itself adds an element of chance, I'd actually be hesitant to use it at all unless we were in dire circumstances. I wouldn't want to be spamming my fire power all day, then get up against the ice dragon which is susceptible to Fire damage but resistant or immune to all others and my guy fails his fire spell check b/c of all the penalties that have heaped on from all the other, inconsequential times I'd used it that day.

Now I might die, my fellow adventurers might die, and I end up feeling like a jerk for letting my group down, all cuz earlier in the dungeon I wanted to blow up some rats or something. I don't know, maybe I'm too cautious a player.

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

So how do you good folks prefer things to work? Tight math with consistent results, changed infrequently through some type of leveling process? Or, perhaps methods put in the hands of the players to try and manage their own chances through risk and reward type decisions? A little of both, or something else?

I like a game that is story-focused, where the story is about the player characters themselves. In that light, I prefer a ruleset where the player gets to make gameplay decisions that shape how their character's story unfolds. That doesn't mean I want a system where the player can just spam the "WIN!" button all the time, but I do want a system where the players have a LOT of input over what happens to their characters. Consequently, I like systems with mechanics that formalize when players can take narrative control over the scene or part of the scene. Generally: I want a system where the resolution mechanics inform the table where the scene is going to end, but leave it up to the players to tell us how they get there.

Take, for example the Risk Roll in the game Trophy Gold:

Trophy SRD wrote:

Risk Roll

When your character attempts a risky task, say what you hope will happen and ask the GM and the other players what could possibly go wrong; "Death" is an acceptable response. You may choose to back down before rolling. If you press on, gather 6-sided dice:

Take one light-colored die if the task is something your character would be able to do because of one of their Skills, or if you have an appropriate piece of equipment that the GM agrees would be helpful. (Note: If you have more than one Skill and/or piece of equipment that applies, you still only get one die.)

Take another light die for accepting a Devil’s Bargain from another player or the GM. Devil’s Bargains are described in the following section.

Add a dark-colored die if you are willing to risk your character’s mind or body in order to succeed. You must include this die whenever your character performs a Ritual, or if the GM tells you that your mind or body is inherently at risk with this action.

Roll the dice. If your highest die is a:
1–3: Your character fails, and things get worse. The GM describes how. The GM may also allow your character to succeed, but things will get worse in some other way.
4–5: Your character succeeds, but there’s some kind of complication. The GM describes the complication, then you describe how your character succeeds.
6: Your character succeeds. Describe how.

If your highest die is a dark die (or if a dark and light die tied for highest), and the dark die is higher than your current Ruin, add 1 to your Ruin. When you do, work with the GM to describe how the action affects your mind and body.

If you are unhappy with your roll and any dark die in the roll is NOT the highest die, you may add a dark die to your dice pool and re-roll them all. You may keep adding a dark die and re-rolling until you’re satisfied with your result or until a dark die is the highest die in your roll.

Devil’s Bargains

The GM or any other player can offer you a bonus light die if you accept a Devil’s Bargain. Common Devil’s Bargains include:

* Your character causes collateral damage or unintended harm.
* Your character gets lost or separated from their companions.
* Your character sacrifices an important item.
* Your character betrays a companion.
* Your character attracts unwanted attention.
* Your character gains a Condition.

The Devil’s Bargain occurs regardless of the outcome of the roll. You should phrase the Devil's Bargain as, "No matter what... [something happens.]" You make the deal, pay the price, and get the bonus die.

The Devil’s Bargain is always a free choice. If you don’t like one, just reject it (or suggest how to alter it so you might consider taking it). You can always just risk your character’s mind or body and take a dark die instead.

Anyone may veto or suggest alterations to a proposed Devil’s Bargain, especially if it would also impact their character.

This is the beating heart of Trophy Gold. Note: The players have input on what a failure looks like. The players also get to tell us what success looks like. Additionally, the players gain a certain amount of narrative control on the scene by introducing and choosing Devil's Bargains. These can throw the scene into unexpected directions and introduce new plot elements that the GM had no conception of until that moment... and whether they'll be incorporated at all is entirely in the hands of the player making the roll.

I consider Trophy's Risk Roll to be one of the most brilliant pieces of TTRPG design that I've ever come across.

And Trophy Gold it at or near the top of the list of my favorite TTRPGs of all time.

[Interesting Character]

I'm the opposite of Haladir, I'm not here for a story, I'm here for the choice and agency. The difference is subtle.

Take an AP for example. An AP is a story, the narrative equivalent to a metaphorical roadtrip in which you will go to a predetermined set of "cities" in a predetermined order, and your freedom of choice lies in what you do in each city, but if New York is next on your list, then oh well, that's where you're going next.

However, in the sorts of games I like, the metaphorical roadtrip has no predetermined cities, you can go to any city in any order in a world that feels alive and responds to you appropriately.

For example, when the bbeg explains his motivation and plan and it's the sort of thing that your character agrees in part but just doesn't like the bbeg's methods, well, if you want to join the bbeg so you can influence the methods used, well, with me, you have that option.

Thus, "what makes a good story" is not important to me, rather, "what makes an interesting and meaningful choice" is very important.

This is where the dice come in. The dice are essential for adding risk and tension to choices. However, these rolls often try to account for other things. In some games, like haladir's favorites, the rolls account for stuff that matters to the general story, while other games focus on accounting for details. These other aspects are essential for making a choice meaningful, because if success always has the same chances, then the choices don't matter nearly as much.

But more importantly, the aspect of mechanics that is truly important to me, is the avoidance of "game logic."

"Game logic" is when someone thinks differently about what can be done based on the fact that it is a game or based on any expectations around the idea of it beung a game. For example, in a video game, tables look like tables but act like immovable and immortal low walls, thus, acting like tables are immovable and immortal is "game logic."

Another example, several really, comes from a youtube video "what games are like for a non-gamer," in which an avid gamer introduces his non-gaming wife to several games with zero help and just watches and analyzes how she learns to play. One of the major aspects is that the wife often tries to do things that a gamer "instinctively" knows won't work because the wife sees that if it were real it could work. Video games generally can't allow everything to work as if it were real and gamers are used to working and thinking within those boundaries, but those boundaries often make no sense to someone familiar only with the real world.

Thus, thinking solely within the kind of boundaries placed by games is "game logic," while thinking with the full spectrum of possible in the realm of an actual world, real or fictional, is "real world logic."

I hate game logic in my rpgs. This is why I prefer simulationist systems, and why I dislike most modern rpgs. Most modern rpgs are focused too much on being a "game," and thus have mechanics designed entirely around game balance and mechanical choices, or they are about the narrative to the point of ignoring how the world works.

You see, if I want players to apply real world logic, then no set of mechanics will cover all possibilities in any kind of reasonably playable and learnable fashion, and thus, the best choice is a system that can easily be adjusted on the fly to represent anything in a logically consistent way that makes rulings easy, sensible, and generally as expected (as in, it should never surprise you unless the relevant real/fictional world facts surprise you, the mechanics themselves should never be surprising or in contradiction to how the narrative world functions), while still being fun to play.

Naturally, this is not the most popular concept. But it is my preference, and hence my love for 3.x, since 3.x does this better than any other system. Thys my distaste for 5e and pf2, both of which moved well away from this concept.

Of course, 3.x is hardly perfect, thus I'm making my own system.

Well, that's my view on the matter. Incomplete, but the basics are there.

[World's most interesting Pan]

Hello again IC.

How do you like a simulation system to work in terms of chance? Do you like consistent choices being baked into the leveling process, or do you like player agency and GM arbitration in context of the moment to apply to the math?

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I recently started in a PF2 Abomination Vaults AP. I wanted a chance to kick the tires on the PF2 system. I started really taking a hard look at actions, feats, proficiency and chances of success. The math of PF2 is much tighter than PF1, also your ability to improve chances of success are few and far between. However, with the 3 action economy failing actions like a feint, a trip, or an intimidation is less painful because you still have two more actions. A nice feature since in 3E/PF1 often you had to decide between tripping a target, and attacking a target. Low chance of success made it feel more like losing a turn.

The "bad roll = lose a turn" dynamic is probably the biggest thing that turns me off from traditional games these days. I'm playing in a PF1e game at the moment, and that's the part that rankles me the most: miss the target number and basically nothing happens. I'm not saying that a pass/fail design is wrong... I just think it's boring.

I far prefer a game where a missed roll changes the tenor of the scene, increases the danger, or otherwise introduces some new element into play.

I also prefer games with far fewer dice rolls than happen in OGL games: I prefer using a roll to resolve a whole scene rather than rolling out a blow-by-blow simulation.

As for your question about math: I prefer a game where results have some sort of normal distribution rather than a line, and where having an edge or advantage gives a significant boost to success chances. In the case of Trophy: If you have a relevant Skill, you get to add a die to your dice pool. In the case of a PbtA where you roll 2d6+stat (6- = Miss; 7+ = Hit; 10+ = Full Hit), a +1 from an advancement or situational advantage can make a BIG difference on your chances of getting what you want. In Fate, invoking an Aspect to get a +2 on the roll is likewise a big boost.

I've been shying away from games where "level" is a concept, so there's no quantum leap of improvement... indeed some of the games I'm playing these days don't really have an advancement mechanism at all.