What would be wrong with giving them what adventurers want?
I think the issue is "What adventuers want" versus "What players want". I assume that all other things remaining equal, fantasy world adventurers want to be rich, famous and armed to the teeth. If this is all that the players want then they should play a game where the PCs are gun-toting venture capitalists, not D&D. The trouble is the difference between what I say I want and what I actually want. When I say "I want a powerful magic sword", what I probably really mean is "I want my character to feel competent and menacing in combat". Maybe the kleptomaniac party really wants a huge dungeon delve for some great lost treasure. At the end of the day what they really want is to participate in exciting adventures, and apparently they think stripping a place clean is great fun.
I strongly agree with this here. If they are having fun cleaning house, let them clean house. Instead of trying to get them to stop make it more interesting and fascinating. Take them into that dungeon delve and create some items that seem like pieces to some kind of puzzle or mystery to solve. As far as magic items go, give them great big bags of holding and sell them homes to furnish with their aquired goods.
This really isn't a problem, the problem is that as a DM you have to realize that its not about you telling a scripted story or having some encounter quota. If all the players are taking part in this behavior, then the only person who perceives the game to have been slowed down is you-and on that note, whats the rush? Let them have their fun.
If your players enjoy no challenge, then it's certainly a decent idea.
If your players enjoy challenge, letting them have everything is a horrible god awful method of DMing. It leads to two problems very quickly. Boredom and the very rapid rise in combat stats/challenges that the DM must throw at the players. The DM soon finds theirself using stronger enemies, better combat tactics, and dice fudging on a consistent level to make it seem like the players are being challenged.
What? How did you draw that conclusion? In what universe does being materialistic equate to non-challenging? I don't even see how these two are related.
I think its perfectly conceivable to create a challenging, interesting, and enjoyable game while simultaneously allowing your klepto players to steal to their hearts delight. I've run campaigns based on conducting hiests for that express purpose. Noone said he had to give out more treasure than the PC's should have at that level. Hell if they are stealing furniture they are going to take a long time to derive any real value from it.
I drew that conclusion because the OP said if he asked them what they wanted, they'd go for god mode (or very powerful items which would essentially put them there). And then iserith said "give it to them if that's what they want". Unfortunately, I don't believe iserith has ever met players that never ever tire of a god mode. I have met players however that would never tire of it. They love the power and could use and abuse it for eternity. Which will likely equal boredom for the DM at least.
I never said don't let them steal everything. Let them steal anything they want. But the OP is looking to slow them down. And cursing their items, adding weight values and carrying capacities, and making it so there's nothing worth stealing are all fair game methods to do this.
I think the issue is "What adventuers want" versus "What players want". I assume that all other things remaining equal, fantasy world adventurers want to be rich, famous and armed to the teeth. If this is all that the players want then they should pl
Just because the players say what they want is unlimited power and an endless supply of free loot, doesn't mean they would really be happy in a game that consisted of nothing but mountains of treasure, guarded by monsters they can kill in their sleep.
Just because the players say what they want is unlimited power and an endless supply of free loot, doesn't mean they would really be happy in a game that consisted of nothing but mountains of treasure, guarded by monsters they can kill in their sleep
Is this a bad thing? Like they'll loot a mutant dog's corpse and try to turn it's paws into gloves, and they'll roll perception in an empty field and then pick the flowers. I have a rogue that takes every turn to try to steal somthing from somebody, i've started making up random crap for him to get. I had a guy who cut off a Goblin's hands to use for a later. They also love making perception checks at the strangest time, and they expect a simple perception check to reveal all the secrets of a room, though I feel as if that's something I can fix some how. Any thoughts? My main concern is the Players looting everything, it slows things down and they leave ever single room empty. (Plus they do werid things like take the head of a Goblin and gutting it, then making the Halfling wear it to try and fool the goblin guards.)
Its not uncommon - Adventureres in one of my campaigns would skin a dead dragon and take its hide because they wanted Dragon Hide Armor - so I was at the time (this is a very long time ago) forced to describe the use of various Dragon hides and the advantage they gave:
Red Dragon Hide: +5 AC bonus / +1 save vs Red Dragon Breath
Its not uncommon - Adventureres in one of my campaigns would skin a dead dragon and take its hide because they wanted Dragon Hide Armor - so I was at the time (this is a very long time ago) forced to describe the use of various Dragon hides and the a
And then iserith said "give it to them if that's what they want". Unfortunately, I don't believe iserith has ever met players that never ever tire of a god mode. I have met players however that would never tire of it. They love the power and could use and abuse it for eternity. Which will likely equal boredom for the DM at least.
"God mode" just means more narrative control. I've already given them that. They can have all the wealth and magic in the campaign world for all I care. They still have the same narrative control as if they were naked and powerless in the deep desert. Which is to say, a lot, right out the gate.
Plus what sort of "power" would they be "abusing" exactly? Made-up fictional power in an imaginary universe? As long as the story I'm watching unfold is interesting, abuse away.
"God mode" just means more narrative control. I've already given them that. They can have all the wealth and magic in the campaign world for all I care. They still have the same narrative control as if they were naked and powerless in the deep desert
There isn't a right or wrong answer here. Some groups like the vague sense of paranoia of cursed items, some groups want to mutilate every goblin to see if he has some gems in his innards, and some groups just want to hear "okay, you're back to town. You earned level-appropriate gold, call it 6,250 gp each and a 14th level uncommon magic item of your choice."
Talk to your players and find out what their expectations are for treasure, and make sure they understand that while gold and powerful items are fun, they have balance-repercussions, and too much or too little can make the game no fun. Try and find a comprimise everyone will enjoy.
There isn't a right or wrong answer here. Some groups like the vague sense of paranoia of cursed items, some groups want to mutilate every goblin to see if he has some gems in his innards, and some groups just want to hear "okay, you're back to town.
And then iserith said "give it to them if that's what they want". Unfortunately, I don't believe iserith has ever met players that never ever tire of a god mode. I have met players however that would never tire of it. They love the power and could use and abuse it for eternity. Which will likely equal boredom for the DM at least.
"God mode" just means more narrative control. I've already given them that. They can have all the wealth and magic in the campaign world for all I care. They still have the same narrative control as if they were naked and powerless in the deep desert. Which is to say, a lot, right out the gate.
Plus what sort of "power" would they be "abusing" exactly? Made-up fictional power in an imaginary universe? As long as the story I'm watching unfold is interesting, abuse away.
We're playing a game that develops a story. Not straight out telling a story. At least, at my table anyway. And at my table, I prefer the game not be broken and the challenge disappear by giving the players exactly what they want when they want it. Feel free to do what you want at yours.
"God mode" just means more narrative control. I've already given them that. They can have all the wealth and magic in the campaign world for all I care. They still have the same narrative control as if they were naked and powerless in the deep desert
There isn't a right or wrong answer here. Some groups like the vague sense of paranoia of cursed items, some groups want to mutilate every goblin to see if he has some gems in his innards, and some groups just want to hear "okay, you're back to town. You earned level-appropriate gold, call it 6,250 gp each and a 14th level uncommon magic item of your choice."
Talk to your players and find out what their expectations are for treasure, and make sure they understand that while gold and powerful items are fun, they have balance-repercussions, and too much or too little can make the game no fun. Try and find a comprimise everyone will enjoy.
I prefer the game not be broken and the challenge disappear by giving the players exactly what they want when they want it. Feel free to do what you want at yours.
Except that the game doesn't get "broken" and the challenge doesn't "disappear" by giving players what they want. I'd love to retire that old canard.
Except that the game doesn't get "broken" and the challenge doesn't "disappear" by giving players what they want. I'd love to retire that old canard.
I prefer the game not be broken and the challenge disappear by giving the players exactly what they want when they want it. Feel free to do what you want at yours.
Except that the game doesn't get "broken" and the challenge doesn't "disappear" by giving players what they want. I'd love to retire that old canard.
That's because you're focused on story. If I give player X the weapon of ultimate destruction that allows him to kill deity Y with one swing/attack, then we might as well not even be playing a game. Oh wait, I'm sorry, according to you, it's just a story. I'd love to retire that new canard.
Except that the game doesn't get "broken" and the challenge doesn't "disappear" by giving players what they want. I'd love to retire that old canard.[/quote]That's because you're focused on story. If I give player X the weapon of ultimate destruction
That's because you're focused on story. If I give player X the weapon of ultimate destruction that allows him to kill deity Y with one swing/attack, then we might as well not even be playing a game. Oh wait, I'm sorry, according to you, it's just a story. I'd love to retire that new canard.
Still gotta travel to Deity Y's domain, fraught with danger as it is. And if that sword can kill Deity Y, then how about Deity Y's allies, Deity X and Deity Z? What about all the fanatical followers coming to stop the PCs from their goal of killing Deity Y? What about all the fantastical locations along the way?
Is that not a game? Is that game also not a story? Who cares if they have a deity-slaying sword. Nothing's an I-win button in a fictional universe, sorry. Imagination.
Still gotta travel to Deity Y's domain, fraught with danger as it is. And if that sword can kill Deity Y, then how about Deity Y's allies, Deity X and Deity Z? What about all the fanatical followers coming to stop the PCs from their goal of killing D
That's because you're focused on story. If I give player X the weapon of ultimate destruction that allows him to kill deity Y with one swing/attack, then we might as well not even be playing a game. Oh wait, I'm sorry, according to you, it's just a story. I'd love to retire that new canard.
Still gotta travel to Deity Y's domain, fraught with danger as it is. And if that sword can kill Deity Y, then how about Deity Y's allies, Deity X and Deity Z? What about all the fanatical followers coming to stop the PCs from their goal of killing Deity Y? What about all the fantastical locations along the way?
Is that not a game? Is that game also not a story? Who cares if they have a deity-slaying sword. Nothing's an I-win button in a fictional universe, sorry. Imagination.
Then the players demand every weapon and armor to defeat every enemy on the way to deity Y to make every possible thing you can throw at them a cakewalk. And in your style, you're simply giving it to them. It's boring. There's nothing remotely exciting or interesting about that.
Still gotta travel to Deity Y's domain, fraught with danger as it is. And if that sword can kill Deity Y, then how about Deity Y's allies, Deity X and Deity Z? What about all the fanatical followers coming to stop the PCs from their goal of killing D
Then the players demand every weapon and armor to defeat every enemy on the way to deity Y to make every possible thing you can throw at them a cakewalk. And in your style, you're simply giving it to them. It's boring. There's nothing remotely exciting or interesting about that.
Nice strawman. You either know nothing about my style or just decided to make stuff up to attack as bad. Also, hyperbole doesn't help when having a discussion. I know you like internet arguments, but still.
Nice strawman. You either know nothing about my style or just decided to make stuff up to attack as bad. Also, hyperbole doesn't help when having a discussion. I know you like internet arguments, but still.
Then the players demand every weapon and armor to defeat every enemy on the way to deity Y to make every possible thing you can throw at them a cakewalk. And in your style, you're simply giving it to them. It's boring. There's nothing remotely exciting or interesting about that.
Nice strawman. You either know nothing about my style or just decided to make stuff up to attack as bad. Also, hyperbole doesn't help when having a discussion. I know you like internet arguments, but still.
The main thing I hear from you guys repeatedly is "why not just give it to them?". If you approach that with one thing, you likely approach that with all things. And honestly, you've already given the players precedent to expect their demands to be answered every time by giving them the ultimate sword. So there's no reasonable reason to not give them anything else they ask for.
Nice strawman. You either know nothing about my style or just decided to make stuff up to attack as bad. Also, hyperbole doesn't help when having a discussion. I know you like internet arguments, but still.[/quote]The main thing I hear from you guys
The main thing I hear from you guys repeatedly is "why not just give it to them?". If you approach that with one thing, you likely approach that with all things. And honestly, you've already given the players precedent to expect their demands to be answered every time by giving them the ultimate sword. So there's no reasonable reason to not give them anything else they ask for.
And in your mind, how exactly do you think they get those "ultimate swords" they ask for?
And in your mind, how exactly do you think they get those "ultimate swords" they ask for?
The main thing I hear from you guys repeatedly is "why not just give it to them?". If you approach that with one thing, you likely approach that with all things. And honestly, you've already given the players precedent to expect their demands to be answered every time by giving them the ultimate sword. So there's no reasonable reason to not give them anything else they ask for.
And in your mind, how exactly do you think they get those "ultimate swords" they ask for?
As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a player on a power trip is going to say "I got it by sleeping with the maidens in my castle". Pretty boring.
And in your mind, how exactly do you think they get those "ultimate swords" they ask for?[/quote]As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a pla
As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a player on a power trip is going to say "I got it by sleeping with the maidens in my castle". Pretty boring.
Hilarious. Maybe you should learn more about these things before making assertions. Arguments about the validity of your style should stand on their own without needing to craft strawman arguments about how I play.
Hilarious. Maybe you should learn more about these things before making assertions. Arguments about the validity of your style should stand on their own without needing to craft strawman arguments about how I play.
As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a player on a power trip is going to say "I got it by sleeping with the maidens in my castle". Pretty boring.
Hilarious. Maybe you should learn more about these things before making assertions. Arguments about the validity of your style should stand on their own without needing to craft strawman arguments about my own.
Hey, I'm going off by the statements you said here. If you would ever like to go into more detail, feel free. But when you say "just give it to them", that's not saying much.
Hilarious. Maybe you should learn more about these things before making assertions. Arguments about the validity of your style should stand on their own without needing to craft strawman arguments about my own.[/quote]Hey, I'm going off by the statem
I think people often miss the critical part of "Yes, and..." DMing, namely the "and". Just saying yes ends the story, which is rather bad if your intention is to immerse the players in a collaborative fantasy world. Also keep in mind that since you avoid the "no" at all costs you automatically prevent the players from unraveling the thread of the story.
DM: You begin your long trek through the rolling hills back towards the village.
Player: (Optional Perception check) I see an enchanted sword.
DM: Yes, you see an ancient sword in the distance, and it is buried to the hilt in a stone pedestal covered in time-worn Davek runes. Over the gentle breeze you can hear a faint humming coming from the sword.
Player: (Optional Strength check) I pull out the sword.
DM: With a mighty cry you wrench the sword from the pedestal, and in a flash of ghostly light the translucent specter of a dwarf appears before you. (Optional Insight check) From his regal bearing and ornate armor you can tell that in life he was a figure of great power.
Player: (Optional Diplomacy check) I tell the specter that I need the sword to slay the great dragon of the North.
DM: Yes, and...
I think people often miss the critical part of "Yes, and..." DMing, namely the "and". Just saying yes ends the story, which is rather bad if your intention is to immerse the players in a collaborative fantasy world. Also keep in mind that since you a
I think people often miss the critical part of "Yes, and..." DMing, namely the "and". Just saying yes ends the story, which is rather bad if your intention is to immerse the players in a collaborative fantasy world. Also keep in mind that since you avoid the "no" at all costs you automatically prevent the players from unraveling the thread of the story.
DM: You begin your long trek through the rolling hills back towards the village.
Player: (Optional Perception check) I see an enchanted sword.
DM: Yes, you see an ancient sword in the distance, and it is buried to the hilt in a stone pedestal covered in time-worn Davek runes. Over the gentle breeze you can hear a faint humming coming from the sword.
Player: (Optional Strength check) I pull out the sword.
DM: With a mighty cry you wrench the sword from the pedestal, and in a flash of ghostly light the translucent specter of a dwarf appears before you. (Optional Insight check) From his regal bearing and ornate armor you can tell that in life he was a figure of great power.
Player: (Optional Diplomacy check) I tell the specter that I need the sword to slay the great dragon of the North.
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM wasn't really giving them what they actually wanted anyway, so they were probably bored. Rolling constant Perception checks and collecting rubbish smacks of boredom to me.
Anyway, as I've said before, this approach doesn't have to be taken to any kind of extreme by the DM in order to provide benefits. But the players' imaginations are sitting right there, largely idle, and can be tapped to fill in the details they themselves are craving. It takes some subtlety on the part of the DM, sure, and a willingness to let go of one's own notion of what the scene is or should be.
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM w
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM wasn't really giving them what they actually wanted anyway, so they were probably bored. Rolling constant Perception checks and collecting rubbish smacks of boredom to me.
Anyway, as I've said before, this approach doesn't have to be taken to any kind of extreme by the DM in order to provide benefits. But the players' imaginations are sitting right there, largely idle, and can be tapped to fill in the details they themselves are craving. It takes some subtlety on the part of the DM, sure, and a willingness to let go of one's own notion of what the scene is or should be.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM wasn't really giving them what they actually wanted anyway, so they were probably bored. Rolling constant Perception checks and collecting rubbish smacks of boredom to me.
Anyway, as I've said before, this approach doesn't have to be taken to any kind of extreme by the DM in order to provide benefits. But the players' imaginations are sitting right there, largely idle, and can be tapped to fill in the details they themselves are craving. It takes some subtlety on the part of the DM, sure, and a willingness to let go of one's own notion of what the scene is or should be.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.
One does not preclude the other.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.[/quote]One does not preclude the other.
I think people often miss the critical part of "Yes, and..." DMing, namely the "and". Just saying yes ends the story, which is rather bad if your intention is to immerse the players in a collaborative fantasy world. Also keep in mind that since you avoid the "no" at all costs you automatically prevent the players from unraveling the thread of the story.
DM: You begin your long trek through the rolling hills back towards the village.
Player: (Optional Perception check) I see an enchanted sword.
DM: Yes, you see an ancient sword in the distance, and it is buried to the hilt in a stone pedestal covered in time-worn Davek runes. Over the gentle breeze you can hear a faint humming coming from the sword.
Player: (Optional Strength check) I pull out the sword.
DM: With a mighty cry you wrench the sword from the pedestal, and in a flash of ghostly light the translucent specter of a dwarf appears before you. (Optional Insight check) From his regal bearing and ornate armor you can tell that in life he was a figure of great power.
Player: (Optional Diplomacy check) I tell the specter that I need the sword to slay the great dragon of the North.
DM: Yes, and...
I don't see much point in saying "yes, and" at the end there. At this point, the player is speaking to the NPC who may have requirements for taking the sword.
I have been listening to that session iserith recorded for his online game. To be honest, outside of character descriptions/introductions, it feels like lazy DMing to me. The players are the ones filling in all the details. The DM is doing practically nothing. In a real life scenario, I could write down information about each room or area the players will discover and leave them with instructions on when to flip over each card. Then they can determine how they get to each room and who gets to split what. I'd also leave a portion of the cards blank so they can fill in any loot they want to add to it. I could then walk out of the room and spend the rest of the night watching a movie and get the details of the story the next day.
I don't see much point in saying "yes, and" at the end there. At this point, the player is speaking to the NPC who may have requirements for taking the sword.I have been listening to that session iserith recorded for his online game. To be honest, ou
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM wasn't really giving them what they actually wanted anyway, so they were probably bored. Rolling constant Perception checks and collecting rubbish smacks of boredom to me.
Anyway, as I've said before, this approach doesn't have to be taken to any kind of extreme by the DM in order to provide benefits. But the players' imaginations are sitting right there, largely idle, and can be tapped to fill in the details they themselves are craving. It takes some subtlety on the part of the DM, sure, and a willingness to let go of one's own notion of what the scene is or should be.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.
One does not preclude the other.
I think you missed my point.
Guess I should spell it out. Seems like fun to me.
Seems like a game to me, with creative players who have things in mind with the stuff they take.[/quote]One does not preclude the other.[/quote]I think you missed my point.Guess I should spell it out. Seems like fun to me.
Of course it does. That doesn't mean that they and their DM (who came here looking for help with that very issue) might not be able to have more fun another way.
Of course it does. That doesn't mean that they and their DM (who came here looking for help with that very issue) might not be able to have more fun another way.
To go back to one of the problems the OP had asked about. Players are asking for perceptions checks, all the time, at weird times and expecting one good perception check to tell them everything they need to know. I had a problem like this with my players at the beginning and the answer that I used worked pretty well.
PC: "I make a perception check. (roll) 26!"
DM: "Ok, where are you looking?"
PC: "At the room. Duh."
DM:" No, where in the room? What are you examing? HOW are you perception checking?"
This prevents my players from deisovering all the secrets of a given area with one roll. It encourages roleplaying. It makes the scene feel real. Now, I have one character sliding his hands along the top of a door frame to look for switches, one digging through the drawers of an old room, and another tapping on the wall with the hilt of his sword listening for hollow sounding bricks. They complained about it the first time, but since then, they love searching things. They sometimes even have more fun than if they were fighting. (well maybe thats a stretch, optimizers and all)
To go back to one of the problems the OP had asked about. Players are asking for perceptions checks, all the time, at weird times and expecting one good perception check to tell them everything they need to know. I had a problem like this with my pla
Of course it does. That doesn't mean that they and their DM (who came here looking for help with that very issue) might not be able to have more fun another way.
So, in other words, you're on a crusade. Lovely.
Me personally? I find it more helpful to just help them out in a manner already native to their gaming. Make suggestions another time when they need play style advice.
Of course it does. That doesn't mean that they and their DM (who came here looking for help with that very issue) might not be able to have more fun another way.[/quote]So, in other words, you're on a crusade. Lovely.Me personally? I find it more hel
DM:" No, where in the room? What are you examing? HOW are you perception checking?"
I like that in principle. I like establishing some fiction and flowing along from that. But I have some issues with this approach.
One is, I might no know anything about searching a room, or where someone might hide something, yet my character might be a master detective, as represented by a high Perception. I suppose in that case, the fiction would be more about establishing (informed by the Perception check) the level of detail this character is generally able to notice.
The other issue is that if players do know about how to search a room, then there's some question as to why the roll is needed in the first place. I suppose there's a range here.
I suppose originally the game didn't have Perception checks, and it still more or less worked. Still, something to help a non-detective play a detective is a good thing.
(Also, this method can still take advantage of the PCs offering description and making declarations. The DM might not have any idea where the object is hidden in the room, but waits for the players to pull together various assumptions. "The suspect is a tall man, so he'd put it where no one else can reach.... check the top of the picture!"
I like that in principle. I like establishing some fiction and flowing along from that. But I have some issues with this approach.One is, I might no know anything about searching a room, or where someone might hide something, yet my character might b
If the players would use an offer of narrative control to give themselves free and unlimited power, then that's what they wanted in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do it? What they want might be boring for the DM, but in that case the DM wasn't really giving them what they actually wanted anyway, so they were probably bored. Rolling constant Perception checks and collecting rubbish smacks of boredom to me.
Anyway, as I've said before, this approach doesn't have to be taken to any kind of extreme by the DM in order to provide benefits. But the players' imaginations are sitting right there, largely idle, and can be tapped to fill in the details they themselves are craving. It takes some subtlety on the part of the DM, sure, and a willingness to let go of one's own notion of what the scene is or should be.
I have been listening to that session iserith recorded for his online game. To be honest, outside of character descriptions/introductions, it feels like lazy DMing to me. The players are the ones filling in all the details. The DM is doing practically nothing. In a real life scenario, I could write down information about each room or area the players will discover and leave them with instructions on when to flip over each card. Then they can determine how they get to each room and who gets to split what. I'd also leave a portion of the cards blank so they can fill in any loot they want to add to it. I could then walk out of the room and spend the rest of the night watching a movie and get the details of the story the next day.
I invite you to continue your commentary in this regard in the Island of the Frog thread.
Yes, that's it exactly.I invite you to continue your commentary in this regard in the Island of the Frog thread.
@Centauri- Interesting point you make there. Maybe i should have explained a little further. I use the perception check result to determine how well they search whatever it is that their searching. The initial perception check upon entering the room can be used to notice points of interest or give them clues as to where they can investigate further. So say a character searches the inside of a drawer, ok, well in the back left corner or said drawer there is a switch that causes a secret door to open. He says he searches the drawer but rolls a pretty dismal perception. So he searches it but doesn't find the switch. Instead he finds the two shiny pieces of gold inside which are more notciable. Part of the problem though is that sometimes they don't find the switch. Usually they just pry open the door at that point.
@Centauri- Interesting point you make there. Maybe i should have explained a little further. I use the perception check result to determine how well they search whatever it is that their searching. The initial perception check upon entering the room
Still tinkering with this, but what if the Perception check doesn't determine whether or not you find something the DM hid (which potentially represents wasted effort), but rather whether or not said thing exists in the first place and is then subsequently found?
Still tinkering with this, but what if the Perception check doesn't determine whether or not you find something the DM hid (which potentially represents wasted effort), but rather whether or not said thing exists in the first place and is then subseq
As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a player on a power trip is going to say "I got it by sleeping with the maidens in my castle". Pretty boring.
It is pretty boring. They will do that once and then stop because it was boring. Many players will see that it will be boring, and not even bother.
I'm not a big fan of his DMing style but the "The players will just say I win" arguement is pretty lame.
It is pretty boring. They will do that once and then stop because it was boring. Many players will see that it will be boring, and not even bother.I'm not a big fan of his DMing style but the "The players will just say I win" arguement is pretty lame
Still tinkering with this, but what if the Perception check doesn't determine whether or not you find something the DM hid (which potentially represents wasted effort), but rather whether or not said thing exists in the first place and is then subsequently found?
This is often the case if my players seem to think something particularly important lies wherever they're searching.
This is often the case if my players seem to think something particularly important lies wherever they're searching.
This is often the case if my players seem to think something particularly important lies wherever they're searching.
A-ha! Exactly what I've been thinking lately. If some of us DMs already do this anyway, why all the foreplay with the Perception checks, eh? It makes me think there's gotta be a better way.
I think it /means/ something when a player asks to make an Insight or Perception check. It could be better harnessed IMO.
A-ha! Exactly what I've been thinking lately. If some of us DMs already do this anyway, why all the foreplay with the Perception checks, eh? It makes me think there's gotta be a better way.I think it /means/ something when a player asks to make an In
As you said, you gave them narrative control. They are free to obtain those swords however they're most interested in acquiring them. Which likely, a player on a power trip is going to say "I got it by sleeping with the maidens in my castle". Pretty boring.
It is pretty boring. They will do that once and then stop because it was boring. Many players will see that it will be boring, and not even bother.
I'm not a big fan of his DMing style but the "The players will just say I win" arguement is pretty lame.
The problem is, I can't let it rest because I do know players who wouldn't stop. Therefore making the playstyle unusable.
It is pretty boring. They will do that once and then stop because it was boring. Many players will see that it will be boring, and not even bother.I'm not a big fan of his DMing style but the "The players will just say I win" arguement is pretty lame
DM:" No, where in the room? What are you examing? HOW are you perception checking?"
I like that in principle. I like establishing some fiction and flowing along from that. But I have some issues with this approach.
One is, I might no know anything about searching a room, or where someone might hide something, yet my character might be a master detective, as represented by a high Perception. I suppose in that case, the fiction would be more about establishing (informed by the Perception check) the level of detail this character is generally able to notice.
The other issue is that if players do know about how to search a room, then there's some question as to why the roll is needed in the first place. I suppose there's a range here.
I suppose originally the game didn't have Perception checks, and it still more or less worked. Still, something to help a non-detective play a detective is a good thing.
(Also, this method can still take advantage of the PCs offering description and making declarations. The DM might not have any idea where the object is hidden in the room, but waits for the players to pull together various assumptions. "The suspect is a tall man, so he'd put it where no one else can reach.... check the top of the picture!"
The DM should know. I can't see a genuine reason you shouldn't. Even if you're winging it that night.
I like that in principle. I like establishing some fiction and flowing along from that. But I have some issues with this approach.One is, I might no know anything about searching a room, or where someone might hide something, yet my character might b
The DM should know. I can't see a genuine reason you shouldn't. Even if you're winging it that night.
Why?
Perhaps it does say more about the players. But as DM, it's always your job to adjust to a playstyle that works best for the group and makes the game workable.
As for why you should know, it's the DM's job. You create the world, you should know most details about it. I could understand if you don't know what's hanging around or hidden 30 miles away from the adventure site where the players are, but not knowing what's in the room where the players are seems like a massive oversight.
The DM should know. I can't see a genuine reason you shouldn't. Even if you're winging it that night.
That's one way to do it. Not a way that has all that much to recommend it other than tradition, but certainly one way.
Actually, there is more than tradition. It helps speed the game up. Stopping to ask your players every few minutes what they find is incredibly slow. And in my experience a play session can already run upwards of 4+ hours when the DM does know everything. If I used iserith's playstyle here, it would take several months to get anywhere in an adventure. The longest campaign I ran lasted a year and a half before real life intervened hard. And we were playing about once a week during that time. Sessions ranged between 3 hours (and these were rare) to 8 hours (all nighters). If I used that style, we would have gotten half as far and probably not had as much fun as we could have before real life intervened.
That says more about the players missing the point of the style (if not the whole game) than it does about how good or bad the playstyle is.Why?[/quote]Perhaps it does say more about the players. But as DM, it's always your job to adjust to a playsty
Perhaps it does say more about the players. But as DM, it's always your job to adjust to a playstyle that works best for the group and makes the game workable.
Maybe, just maybe, you should run some games for people other than the players you've been describing in your other posts.
As for why you should know, it's the DM's job. You create the world, you should know most details about it. I could understand if you don't know what's hanging around or hidden 30 miles away from the adventure site where the players are, but not knowing what's in the room where the players are seems like a massive oversight.
Disagree. It isn't my job as DM to create the world. And I don't need to know very much at all in terms of details to run a game when I have 3 to 5 other people at the table with brains and imaginations who are ostensibly there to use them.
Actually, there is more than tradition. It helps speed the game up. Stopping to ask your players every few minutes what they find is incredibly slow. And in my experience a play session can already run upwards of 4+ hours when the DM does know everything. If I used iserith's playstyle here, it would take several months to get anywhere in an adventure. The longest campaign I ran lasted a year and a half before real life intervened hard. And we were playing about once a week during that time. Sessions ranged between 3 hours (and these were rare) to 8 hours (all nighters). If I used that style, we would have gotten half as far and probably not had as much fun as we could have before real life intervened.
That's never been borne out in my experience. In fact, with the playstyle I espouse, a lot more fiction gets created and crammed into a 4-hour session than most other games I've played or DMed because all the players are putting their ideas in play without even impacting the level of action or progression toward the PCs' goals. I'm not sure how you can make these assertions without any experience in the style.
Maybe, just maybe, you should run some games for people other than the players you've been describing in your other posts.It gets better.Disagree. It isn't my job as DM to create the world. And I don't need to know very much at all in terms of detail
Actually, there is more than tradition. It helps speed the game up. Stopping to ask your players every few minutes what they find is incredibly slow.
No it isn't. In fact it's as fast, or faster than them rolling every time they want to see if something is there, or asking if something is there and having the DM figure out what they see.
As I've said before, one doesn't need to go whole hog with this. Some things do get planned out, but sometimes either something hasn't been planned and the DM taps the players to see what cool ideas are kicking around. Details pop in that the DM, in months of planning, never considered. This can even happen when something is planned. Once players see how this works and see that there's very little to work out, and DMs see how easy ideas are to accept and add on to, this can go very quickly.
No it isn't. In fact it's as fast, or faster than them rolling every time they want to see if something is there, or asking if something is there and having the DM figure out what they see.As I've said before, one doesn't need to go whole hog with th
Perhaps it does say more about the players. But as DM, it's always your job to adjust to a playstyle that works best for the group and makes the game workable.
Maybe, just maybe, you should run some games for people other than the players you've been describing in your other posts.
As for why you should know, it's the DM's job. You create the world, you should know most details about it. I could understand if you don't know what's hanging around or hidden 30 miles away from the adventure site where the players are, but not knowing what's in the room where the players are seems like a massive oversight.
Disagree. It isn't my job as DM to create the world. And I don't need to know very much at all in terms of details to run a game when I have 3 to 5 other people at the table with brains and imaginations who are ostensibly there to use them.
Actually, there is more than tradition. It helps speed the game up. Stopping to ask your players every few minutes what they find is incredibly slow. And in my experience a play session can already run upwards of 4+ hours when the DM does know everything. If I used iserith's playstyle here, it would take several months to get anywhere in an adventure. The longest campaign I ran lasted a year and a half before real life intervened hard. And we were playing about once a week during that time. Sessions ranged between 3 hours (and these were rare) to 8 hours (all nighters). If I used that style, we would have gotten half as far and probably not had as much fun as we could have before real life intervened.
That's never been borne out in my experience. In fact, with the playstyle I espouse, a lot more fiction gets created and crammed into a 4-hour session than most other games I've played or DMed because all the players are putting their ideas in play without even impacting the level of action or progression toward the PCs' goals. I'm not sure how you can make these assertions without any experience in the style.
I will chalk the disagreement up to differing methods of play. No comment on the players.
As for the time issue, I'm basing it on the recordings you provided and matching it up with my last session.
In my last session, it took the players an hour to leave town. If I had asked them for details about the world, it probably would have taken twice as long (especially once you include the nice argument with a traveling merchant and tavern bar keep). And we were only able to play for about 4 hours.
Maybe, just maybe, you should run some games for people other than the players you've been describing in your other posts.It gets better.Disagree. It isn't my job as DM to create the world. And I don't need to know very much at all in terms of detail
As I've said before, one doesn't need to go whole hog with this. Some things do get planned out, but sometimes either something hasn't been planned and the DM taps the players to see what cool ideas are kicking around. Details pop in that the DM, in months of planning, never considered. This can even happen when something is planned. Once players see how this works and see that there's very little to work out, and DMs see how easy ideas are to accept and add on to, this can go very quickly.
Centauri brings up a great point about bringing a healthy dose of prudence to the gaming table. While it is possible to just sit down at the table, fire up DDI on your laptop and completely fly by the seat of your pants, most DMs have at least some ideas on what they want to do that night (after all, everyone at the table gets a vote in the narrative). As a personal preference I like having a few locations, encounters and skill challenges mapped out... though when the PCs decide to go off in a crazy new direction I merrily swap out those pre-generated items or adapt them on the fly. The gnoll fortress I spent 4 hours designing becomes the orc tribal camp when the players decide that they'd rather have a story about orcs (which is one of the reasons why I quite happily advocate re-skinning monsters). I get to use the combat encounter I planned out (which makes me happy since I was the dope who wrote it), but the players feel more empowered because they are the ones driving the story, and most of the people I have run games with are happy to indulge me in my mechanical set pieces (so long as they aren't impeding the narrative) in favor of getting to feel like they really drive the plot forward.
A good DM can make pretty much anything work so long as the players are on board (and for the sake of full disclosure I ran a 2e campaign for two years that railroaded the PCs all over Faerun, but they overwhelming loved riding that choo-choo since all they wanted to do was chop monsters to pieces and outsmart my traps). The advantage of getting players involved in the narrative is that you have an automatic feedback mechanism for the kind of story they want to play.
Centauri brings up a great point about bringing a healthy dose of prudence to the gaming table. While it is possible to just sit down at the table, fire up DDI on your laptop and completely fly by the seat of your pants, most DMs have at least some i
I will chalk the disagreement up to differing methods of play. No comment on the players.
As for the time issue, I'm basing it on the recordings you provided and matching it up with my last session.
In my last session, it took the players an hour to leave town. If I had asked them for details about the world, it probably would have taken twice as long (especially once you include the nice argument with a traveling merchant and tavern bar keep). And we were only able to play for about 4 hours.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement. Unless the town's getting blown up that night, it ain't getting a single second of "screen time."
@ Keripalli: Before this goes any further, you realize that I'm not the guy who fires up my laptop and flies completely by the seat of my pants, right? Lots of assumptions being thrown at me lately, so if I'm being oversensitive, I apologize in advance.
What was this thread about anyway? Maybe we should just get a chat channel and have at it.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement.
@ Keripalli: Before this goes any further, you realize that I'm not the guy who fires up my laptop and flies completely by the seat of my pants, right? Lots of assumptions being thrown at me lately, so if I'm being oversensitive, I apologize in advance.
Oh heavens no. I was trying to use a hyperbole to describe a way that the style can easily be misconstrued. People are pretty familiar with the pitfalls of railroading (linear narrative if we want to avoid loaded terms), but less familiar with the pitfalls of sandbox or LIM (which are obviously two very different animals), so it's very easy to assume the worst about the unknown. Heck, building a credible LIM is often way more work than a linear narrative.
Oh heavens no. I was trying to use a hyperbole to describe a way that the style can easily be misconstrued. People are pretty familiar with the pitfalls of railroading (linear narrative if we want to avoid loaded terms), but less familiar with the pi
The advantage of getting players involved in the narrative is that you have an automatic feedback mechanism for the kind of story they want to play.
Iserith was running a game in which my character attempted to poison a drink in order to make the imbiber trust my character as a dear friend. Well, I flubbed the roll to taint the drink without being seen, so iserith was trying to come up with what that meant. I said "I drink the poisoned drink. If I'm drinking it, then she won't have any reason to think I just poisoned it." Of course, that meant my character had to treat her as a dear friend, but at least my character wasn't tossed out on his ear.
This had several advantages over the normal mode of the DM deciding everything. One, it was faster, because everyone involved was imagining this scene, trying to imagine what happened next, and trying to make it interesting. Anyone could have said something, even another one of the players, but I said it first. Two, it imposed something that a DM might not be comfortable imposing on or even suggesting to a player. Three, it made clear the kind of game or experience I thought would be interesting, meaning that in future the DM could consider imposing results that were very troublesome but very interesting on my character.
I haven't tested this extensively, but I think having players declare details also makes those details easier for the players (or at least the one stating them) to remember them. Of course, this will tend to make them harder for the DM to remember them, but I think that's a pretty good trade. You end up with players who are involved and feel closer to the world. I'm not one for immersion as a goal, but it's nice when players remember names and details. (I was the one who kept bringing up that my character was poisoned. It's easy for a DM to forget details like that.)
Iserith was running a game in which my character attempted to poison a drink in order to make the imbiber trust my character as a dear friend. Well, I flubbed the roll to taint the drink without being seen, so iserith was trying to come up with what
I will chalk the disagreement up to differing methods of play. No comment on the players.
As for the time issue, I'm basing it on the recordings you provided and matching it up with my last session.
In my last session, it took the players an hour to leave town. If I had asked them for details about the world, it probably would have taken twice as long (especially once you include the nice argument with a traveling merchant and tavern bar keep). And we were only able to play for about 4 hours.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement. Unless the town's getting blown up that night, it ain't getting a single second of "screen time."
@ Keripalli: Before this goes any further, you realize that I'm not the guy who fires up my laptop and flies completely by the seat of my pants, right? Lots of assumptions being thrown at me lately, so if I'm being oversensitive, I apologize in advance.
What was this thread about anyway? Maybe we should just get a chat channel and have at it.
To the bolded part: Why? I personally consider the town as part of the adventure. Not just a Wal-Mart where players get their s*** and get out (be it quests or items). I felt I had more than enough engagement from my players while they tried to cheat a merchant and two tavern patrons out of their gold at a game of black jack. The ensuing arguments between PCs and NPCs and stalling for time by the PCs was quite fun for all involved. ....the player really really REALLY did not want to lose that 50 gold pieces. xD
Also, my players might actually blow the town up. You never know with them.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement.
... it imposed something that a DM might not be comfortable imposing on or even suggesting to a player.
That's a hidden gem right there Centauri.
As a player, I hate being charmed / poisoned / imprisoned / kidnapped / blackmailed... namely because I felt like I was losing an element of control over my PC. On the flipside, when I am allowed to be the one to decide some gruesome fate I am often far meaner to my PC than the DM is (suffering building character and all that) in large part because I felt like I had a greater stake in the narrative outcome that way.
That's a hidden gem right there Centauri.As a player, I hate being charmed / poisoned / imprisoned / kidnapped / blackmailed... namely because I felt like I was losing an element of control over my PC. On the flipside, when I am allowed to be the one
To the bolded part: Why? I personally consider the town as part of the adventure. Not just a Wal-Mart where players get their s*** and get out (be it quests or items). I felt I had more than enough engagement from my players while they tried to cheat a merchant and two tavern patrons out of their gold at a game of black jack. The ensuing arguments between PCs and NPCs and stalling for time by the PCs was quite fun for all involved. ....the player really really REALLY did not want to lose that 50 gold pieces. xD
Also, my players might actually blow the town up. You never know with them.
Unless the adventure's in the town, then the adventurers are out on an adventure and that's what gets screen time. I got 4 hours. It's going to be very sharply focused on actual adventuring.
Unless the adventure's in the town, then the adventurers are out on an adventure and that's what gets screen time. I got 4 hours. It's going to be very sharply focused on actual adventuring.
To the bolded part: Why? I personally consider the town as part of the adventure. Not just a Wal-Mart where players get their s*** and get out (be it quests or items). I felt I had more than enough engagement from my players while they tried to cheat a merchant and two tavern patrons out of their gold at a game of black jack. The ensuing arguments between PCs and NPCs and stalling for time by the PCs was quite fun for all involved. ....the player really really REALLY did not want to lose that 50 gold pieces. xD
Also, my players might actually blow the town up. You never know with them.
Unless the adventure's in the town, then the adventurers are out on an adventure and that's what gets screen time. I got 4 hours. It's going to be very sharply focused on actual adventuring.
Interesting approach. Though I still prefer to try and approach every single part of the session as the adventure, no matter where they're at. Thus, if I asked them about everything, you're looking at too much time to get anywhere significant.
Unless the adventure's in the town, then the adventurers are out on an adventure and that's what gets screen time. I got 4 hours. It's going to be very sharply focused on actual adventuring.[/quote]Interesting approach. Though I still prefer to try a
Interesting approach. Though I still prefer to try and approach every single part of the session as the adventure, no matter where they're at. Thus, if I asked them about everything, you're looking at too much time to get anywhere significant.
Yes, I used to do that, too, and a lot of DMs still do. Not my cup of tea as a player or DM. I'd rather not play than talk to barkeeps and go shopping in town. Unless the adventure happens to be in the town, of course (which I rarely choose as a location).
My take on this is that D&D is nice and broad and useful for a lot of styles, but it does a few things well. Among those things is location-based fantasy adventuring. Anything else is a gamble because D&D was not specifically built for those things. Horror, mystery, and other genres come to mind. Now, the DM can build up a bunch of non-transferrable skills to make those genres work, but it's still hit or miss in my opinion, especially given there are other games that do it better. The old burn down the tavern routine might be a way better scenario in Fiasco than in D&D. By focusing on what D&D does best, you improve your chances at a better game.
Yes, I used to do that, too, and a lot of DMs still do. Not my cup of tea as a player or DM. I'd rather not play than talk to barkeeps and go shopping in town. Unless the adventure happens to be in the town, of course (which I rarely choose as a loc
I will chalk the disagreement up to differing methods of play. No comment on the players.
As for the time issue, I'm basing it on the recordings you provided and matching it up with my last session.
In my last session, it took the players an hour to leave town. If I had asked them for details about the world, it probably would have taken twice as long (especially once you include the nice argument with a traveling merchant and tavern bar keep). And we were only able to play for about 4 hours.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement. Unless the town's getting blown up that night, it ain't getting a single second of "screen time."
@ Keripalli: Before this goes any further, you realize that I'm not the guy who fires up my laptop and flies completely by the seat of my pants, right? Lots of assumptions being thrown at me lately, so if I'm being oversensitive, I apologize in advance.
What was this thread about anyway? Maybe we should just get a chat channel and have at it.
To the bolded part: Why? I personally consider the town as part of the adventure. Not just a Wal-Mart where players get their s*** and get out (be it quests or items). I felt I had more than enough engagement from my players while they tried to cheat a merchant and two tavern patrons out of their gold at a game of black jack. The ensuing arguments between PCs and NPCs and stalling for time by the PCs was quite fun for all involved. ....the player really really REALLY did not want to lose that 50 gold pieces. xD
Also, my players might actually blow the town up. You never know with them.
I first want to say. "Wow."
I never expected my question to get so much response, and there's a lot to take in (6 Whole FRIGGIN PAGES) but what i'll get out now is in response to this and other things.
I love towns, one thing I like about my players is they make great use of towns. (most of the times) The last two towns they went to, they've set an inn on fire and in another one our Rogue tried to sneak out of the inn and jump from the roof of the inn to the roof of another building, he failed, but it was a good effort.
I also remember some stating that I was trying to slow my players down, not so. I think the flow of our players/playing is good. I just don't really like how he tries to loot everything whenver he can, even during combat, I feel like it makes things a little choppy for the other plays. (That and he always tries to loot first, but then again he's a rogue, he's greedy.)
I saw someone posting about having the PCs enter a town and seeing a thief loose his hands for a crime, I liked that, might make our Rogue think twice before doing anything illegal.
Lastly I thought I should give you some background on our players, and my own skill as a DM. Which pretty much doesn't exist. I "volunteered" to be the DM of our group becuase I had the most understand of the rules. (Hardly.) And nobody else wanted to do it. I do enjoy being the DM, but I do often feel as if i'm tripping over my lack of experince alot.
All in all my goal for this group is to have them have fun. (Try saying that ten times fast.) But at the same time I want to present a Dynamic world full of challanges and ingaging stories. That sorta stuff.
Once again thank you all for your great interst in my problem.
Now we're getting somewhere. The likelihood of spending an hour in a town doing anything in my playstyle is unlikely. It probably approaches zero. Take that hour back and use it to ask questions and get answers to generate more action and engagement.
I saw someone posting about having the PCs enter a town and seeing a thief loose his hands for a crime, I liked that, might make our Rogue think twice before doing anything illegal.
That's a cool image - in fact, our DM just did that for flavor in a game I'm in right now - but it's risky. Be prepared for the player to call your bluff. If you're not bluffing, you should have some idea of what you'll do with a handless PC.
Lastly I thought I should give you some background on our players, and my own skill as a DM. Which pretty much doesn't exist. I "volunteered" to be the DM of our group becuase I had the most understand of the rules. (Hardly.) And nobody else wanted to do it. I do enjoy being the DM, but I do often feel as if i'm tripping over my lack of experince alot.
Good for you for trying.
You'll make some mistakes, but that's okay. You can have a fun game even if lots of the rules get missed or misapplied. Keep asking questions here. We're idealistic enough to believe that we can help people out of the problems we've encountered.
That's a cool image - in fact, our DM just did that for flavor in a game I'm in right now - but it's risky. Be prepared for the player to call your bluff. If you're not bluffing, you should have some idea of what you'll do with a handless PC.Good for
I saw someone posting about having the PCs enter a town and seeing a thief loose his hands for a crime, I liked that, might make our Rogue think twice before doing anything illegal.
That's a cool image - in fact, our DM just did that for flavor in a game I'm in right now - but it's risky. Be prepared for the player to call your bluff. If you're not bluffing, you should have some idea of what you'll do with a handless PC.
Lastly I thought I should give you some background on our players, and my own skill as a DM. Which pretty much doesn't exist. I "volunteered" to be the DM of our group becuase I had the most understand of the rules. (Hardly.) And nobody else wanted to do it. I do enjoy being the DM, but I do often feel as if i'm tripping over my lack of experince alot.
Good for you for trying.
You'll make some mistakes, but that's okay. You can have a fun game even if lots of the rules get missed or misapplied. Keep asking questions here. We're idealistic enough to believe that we can help people out of the problems we've encountered.
*nod* We play every Sat for about 4-5hours (Till we pass out) but i'm a little worried about our group's make up. (Rogue, Rogue, Mage, and Ranger that comes Bi-weekly) No heals, no Strong Tank, just squishyness. We're playing the Red Box Adventure to get us started and, after two encounters they've run out of healing surges and had to retreat and come back another day, secondly i'm worried they're not playing smart, they've blown their daily powers off on Minions who they know are minions, I don't want to tell them not to do that, but when they hit harder areas without their Dailies, i'm worried.
That's a cool image - in fact, our DM just did that for flavor in a game I'm in right now - but it's risky. Be prepared for the player to call your bluff. If you're not bluffing, you should have some idea of what you'll do with a handless PC.Good for
*nod* We play every Sat for about 4-5hours (Till we pass out) but i'm a little worried about our group's make up. (Rogue, Rogue, Mage, and Ranger that comes Bi-weekly) No heals, no Strong Tank, just squishyness. We're playing the Red Box Adventure to get us started and, after two encounters they've run out of healing surges and had to retreat and come back another day, secondly i'm worried they're not playing smart, they've blown their daily powers off on Minions who they know are minions, I don't want to tell them not to do that, but when they hit harder areas without their Dailies, i'm worried.
As I read your post, you're worried that their characters are going to die. These concerns are deserving of their own thread. There are other threads addresing a similar problem, because it's a common problem, but we can always use another - because it's a common problem.
One traditional approach is to let them play how they want, and not change anything. They'll get to a point that they haven't prepared for and they'll fail, which traditionally means "die." Then they'll make new characters and start again, presumably having learned valuable lessons about strategy.
Look for ways to make failure mean something other than "death." I'm not familiar with the Red Box Adventure, and I'm guessing it's mostly about combat, but generally there's someone with a goal other than killing the characters. Increase the priority of this goal in the mind of that enemy, so that it exceeds the priority of killing the characters. Then, if the PCs find that they're not up to the task, the worst that happens is that the enemy accomplishes the primary goal and the PCs fail. They can still learn from this failure, it can still sting (perhaps even more than character death), but the characters don't need to die.
Make the failure, whatever it is, interesting. Don't just close the door, but leave open the possibility that the characters can mitigate the failure or set it right. Even PC death can be set right in D&D, but if their town has been overrun, or an object stolen, or an NPC kidnapped, there are clear next steps for the PCs to pursue.
As I read your post, you're worried that their characters are going to die. These concerns are deserving of their own thread. There are other threads addresing a similar problem, because it's a common problem, but we can always use another - because
*nod* We play every Sat for about 4-5hours (Till we pass out) but i'm a little worried about our group's make up. (Rogue, Rogue, Mage, and Ranger that comes Bi-weekly) No heals, no Strong Tank, just squishyness. We're playing the Red Box Adventure to get us started and, after two encounters they've run out of healing surges and had to retreat and come back another day, secondly i'm worried they're not playing smart, they've blown their daily powers off on Minions who they know are minions, I don't want to tell them not to do that, but when they hit harder areas without their Dailies, i'm worried.
As I read your post, you're worried that their characters are going to die. These concerns are deserving of their own thread. There are other threads addresing a similar problem, because it's a common problem, but we can always use another - because it's a common problem.
One traditional approach is to let them play how they want, and not change anything. They'll get to a point that they haven't prepared for and they'll fail, which traditionally means "die." Then they'll make new characters and start again, presumably having learned valuable lessons about strategy.
Look for ways to make failure mean something other than "death." I'm not familiar with the Red Box Adventure, and I'm guessing it's mostly about combat, but generally there's someone with a goal other than killing the characters. Increase the priority of this goal in the mind of that enemy, so that it exceeds the priority of killing the characters. Then, if the PCs find that they're not up to the task, the worst that happens is that the enemy accomplishes the primary goal and the PCs fail. They can still learn from this failure, it can still sting (perhaps even more than character death), but the characters don't need to die.
Make the failure, whatever it is, interesting. Don't just close the door, but leave open the possibility that the characters can mitigate the failure or set it right. Even PC death can be set right in D&D, but if their town has been overrun, or an object stolen, or an NPC kidnapped, there are clear next steps for the PCs to pursue.
*nod* Yeah, i've read up on that, but i'm tryng to avoid custom content due to my lack of experince, but uh, the Rogue had gotten his character made by his... "Friend" who has D&D Experince cause he wants a well built character.
Quick Fingers Minor action You can steal things using a minor action with a thievery check.
Is on his character sheet, I can't find this in the Player's Hand Book 1, so I thought this deserved some mention here, due to it's nature. So that's what I mean by him stealing every chance he gets, he uses it on monsters he's fighting, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
As I read your post, you're worried that their characters are going to die. These concerns are deserving of their own thread. There are other threads addresing a similar problem, because it's a common problem, but we can always use another - because
Minor action You can steal things using a minor action with a thievery check.
Is on his character sheet, I can't find this in the Player's Hand Book 1, so I thought this deserved some mention here, due to it's nature. So that's what I mean by him stealing every chance he gets, he uses it on monsters he's fighting, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's an encounter power, so if he's using it more than once per encounter, no es bueno. Even still, I might say that such an attempt provokes an opportunity attack though I'd probably let the Thievery roll determine that.
It's an encounter power, so if he's using it more than once per encounter, no es bueno. Even still, I might say that such an attempt provokes an opportunity attack though I'd probably let the Thievery roll determine that.
Minor action You can steal things using a minor action with a thievery check.
Is on his character sheet, I can't find this in the Player's Hand Book 1, so I thought this deserved some mention here, due to it's nature. So that's what I mean by him stealing every chance he gets, he uses it on monsters he's fighting, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's an encounter power, so if he's using it more than once per encounter, no es bueno. Even still, I might say that such an attempt provokes an opportunity attack though I'd probably let the Thievery roll determine that.
Good to know, i'll keep the opportunity attack thing in mind.
It's an encounter power, so if he's using it more than once per encounter, no es bueno. Even still, I might say that such an attempt provokes an opportunity attack though I'd probably let the Thievery roll determine that.[/quote]Good to know, i'll ke
I'd say it'd only provoke an attack if the monster, or an adjacent monster, noticed. Thievery versus passive Perception, maybe. My group has a player who likes to play Rogues, and hasn't gotten a lot of opportunity to steal things, although sneaking around and picking locks seems to come up a lot. He'll be happy that one of the others in the DM rotation is talking about doing a Heist plot.
I'd say it'd only provoke an attack if the monster, or an adjacent monster, noticed. Thievery versus passive Perception, maybe. My group has a player who likes to play Rogues, and hasn't gotten a lot of opportunity to steal things, although sneaking
*nod* Yeah, i've read up on that, but i'm tryng to avoid custom content due to my lack of experince,
In that case, since you're just starting out, make it clear to the players that the characters might die on occassion, until you have more experience.
Even with that being the case, it's certainly acceptable to make other considerations to account for your lack of experience. "Dead" characters can come back at the end of the encounter, perhaps with the same penalties imposed by "Raise Dead," but without the actual ritual and cost. All this requires is a slight easing of what "negative bloodied HP" actually means.
but uh, the Rogue had gotten his character made by his... "Friend" who has D&D Experince cause he wants a well built character.
Quick Fingers Minor action You can steal things using a minor action with a thievery check.
Is on his character sheet, I can't find this in the Player's Hand Book 1, so I thought this deserved some mention here, due to it's nature. So that's what I mean by him stealing every chance he gets, he uses it on monsters he's fighting, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Looks to me like that's in PHB1. It's a Level 2 Rogue Utility power.
Don't worry about it making sense. The game, including combat, is very abstract, so how he actually goes about stealing the item can be imagined in a lot of different ways. Find one that makes sense to you.
In that case, since you're just starting out, make it clear to the players that the characters might die on occassion, until you have more experience.Even with that being the case, it's certainly acceptable to make other considerations to account for
*nod* Yeah, i've read up on that, but i'm tryng to avoid custom content due to my lack of experince,
In that case, since you're just starting out, make it clear to the players that the characters might die on occassion, until you have more experience.
Even with that being the case, it's certainly acceptable to make other considerations to account for your lack of experience. "Dead" characters can come back at the end of the encounter, perhaps with the same penalties imposed by "Raise Dead," but without the actual ritual and cost. All this requires is a slight easing of what "negative bloodied HP" actually means.
but uh, the Rogue had gotten his character made by his... "Friend" who has D&D Experince cause he wants a well built character.
Quick Fingers Minor action You can steal things using a minor action with a thievery check.
Is on his character sheet, I can't find this in the Player's Hand Book 1, so I thought this deserved some mention here, due to it's nature. So that's what I mean by him stealing every chance he gets, he uses it on monsters he's fighting, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Looks to me like that's in PHB1. It's a Level 2 Rogue Utility power.
Don't worry about it making sense. The game, including combat, is very abstract, so how he actually goes about stealing the item can be imagined in a lot of different ways. Find one that makes sense to you.
Well, I had been going with more of a, "He snatches it away from the target." But they've been fighting goblins so i've had to come up with stuff on the fly for goblins, maybe some sort of necklace made out of teeth?
In that case, since you're just starting out, make it clear to the players that the characters might die on occassion, until you have more experience.Even with that being the case, it's certainly acceptable to make other considerations to account for
Well, I had been going with more of a, "He snatches it away from the target." But they've been fighting goblins so i've had to come up with stuff on the fly for goblins, maybe some sort of necklace made out of teeth?
Ah, here's the thing: you don't have to be the one to come up with that stuff.
You can come up with these things in advance, especially now that you know that he likes to do this, but you can also put it to the player, or any player around the table. "You take a small mundane trinket from him. What is it?" Not only does this take some of the work of your back, but you'll gain insight into the kind of game the players want, and the way they think about the world they're in. They'll become more invested in what's going on, because they will have helped establish the details meaningful to them. These details are gifts to the DM, and can be unexpectedly rewarding.
Ah, here's the thing: you don't have to be the one to come up with that stuff.You can come up with these things in advance, especially now that you know that he likes to do this, but you can also put it to the player, or any player around the table.
Although the whole transaction really raises a question: If we're talking about a traditional scenario of PCs vs. goblins (goal: Kill all PCs/goblins, which I don't recommend, but anyway), why are the PCs looting the bodies before they're dead if they plan on killing them anyway? Seems redundant.
What Centauri said.Although the whole transaction really raises a question: If we're talking about a traditional scenario of PCs vs. goblins (goal: Kill all PCs/goblins, which I don't recommend, but anyway), why are the PCs looting the bodies before
Although the whole transaction really raises a question: If we're talking about a traditional scenario of PCs vs. goblins (goal: Kill all PCs/goblins, which I don't recommend, but anyway), why are the PCs looting the bodies before they're dead if they plan on killing them anyway? Seems redundant.
My understanding is that these are new players. They might just be trying out what they can do. They might be seeing it implied that an "Encounter" power is intended to be used every encounter, whether it's useful or not.
My understanding is that these are new players. They might just be trying out what they can do. They might be seeing it implied that an "Encounter" power is intended to be used every encounter, whether it's useful or not.
Although the whole transaction really raises a question: If we're talking about a traditional scenario of PCs vs. goblins (goal: Kill all PCs/goblins, which I don't recommend, but anyway), why are the PCs looting the bodies before they're dead if they plan on killing them anyway? Seems redundant.
...That's a good question, one to which I have no answer to, but they're cutting through the goblins to retrive an item for a merchant. (The D&D Starter Box. It's a Red Box... Of D&D stuff.)
Well, I had been going with more of a, "He snatches it away from the target." But they've been fighting goblins so i've had to come up with stuff on the fly for goblins, maybe some sort of necklace made out of teeth?
Ah, here's the thing: you don't have to be the one to come up with that stuff.
You can come up with these things in advance, especially now that you know that he likes to do this, but you can also put it to the player, or any player around the table. "You take a small mundane trinket from him. What is it?" Not only does this take some of the work of your back, but you'll gain insight into the kind of game the players want, and the way they think about the world they're in. They'll become more invested in what's going on, because they will have helped establish the details meaningful to them. These details are gifts to the DM, and can be unexpectedly rewarding.
I love It. ALOT.
...That's a good question, one to which I have no answer to, but they're cutting through the goblins to retrive an item for a merchant. (The D&D Starter Box. It's a Red Box... Of D&D stuff.)Ah, here's the thing: you don't have to be the one to come u
...That's a good question, one to which I have no answer to, but they're cutting through the goblins to retrive an item for a merchant. (The D&D Starter Box. It's a Red Box... Of D&D stuff.)
Note what you have here: a goal that, in theory doesn't require them to kill a single enemy. Furthermore, it's a goal that actively encourages thievery.
Think of all the movies and stories there are in which the heroes have fought almost to their goal, but are too beat up and short on resources to complete the goal via a direct assault. If your players put themselves in that spot through non-optimal use of their powers and resources, it's actually something of a blessing, because it means that in order to succeed they're going to have to get clever. They can't charge straight in, or they'll fail. If you set a time limit (say, until the merchant sells or uses the McGuffin) then they probably also can't take an extended rest to recharge. This is where you'll see creativity start to emerge, and where the DM becomes the person who accepts and adds on to cool ideas, instead of the person who might feel the need to block or deflect ideas.
Glad to hear it. It's not my idea, but one that has been around for a while and is seeing use in some newer games. 4th Edition doesn't directly advocate it, except maybe in DMG 2, though it's related to the "Yes, and..." concept in DMG 1. Try it out a little bit and see how it works for you and your group.
Note what you have here: a goal that, in theory doesn't require them to kill a single enemy. Furthermore, it's a goal that actively encourages thievery.Think of all the movies and stories there are in which the heroes have fought almost to their goal
Side effect of this method that I've noticed after a while using it - my prep work gets less and less. As your players take on more of the narrative, you'll need less on the front end to produce the same amount and quality of play experience. As I consider prep to be a barrier to DMing (especially entry to DMing in the first place), this is a big upside.
I was looking through some old adventures I wrote the other day and noticing just how much I would now cut out if I ran them again today. "Don't need to know this to make it work..." "Or that..." "This detail can be filled in by the players..." "Scratch that out..." "This whole planned scene can go..." and so on.
Side effect of this method that I've noticed after a while using it - my prep work gets less and less. As your players take on more of the narrative, you'll need less on the front end to produce the same amount and quality of play experience. As I co
...That's a good question, one to which I have no answer to, but they're cutting through the goblins to retrive an item for a merchant. (The D&D Starter Box. It's a Red Box... Of D&D stuff.)
Note what you have here: a goal that, in theory doesn't require them to kill a single enemy. Furthermore, it's a goal that actively encourages thievery.
Think of all the movies and stories there are in which the heroes have fought almost to their goal, but are too beat up and short on resources to complete the goal via a direct assault. If your players put themselves in that spot through non-optimal use of their powers and resources, it's actually something of a blessing, because it means that in order to succeed they're going to have to get clever. They can't charge straight in, or they'll fail. If you set a time limit (say, until the merchant sells or uses the McGuffin) then they probably also can't take an extended rest to recharge. This is where you'll see creativity start to emerge, and where the DM becomes the person who accepts and adds on to cool ideas, instead of the person who might feel the need to block or deflect ideas.
Glad to hear it. It's not my idea, but one that has been around for a while and is seeing use in some newer games. 4th Edition doesn't directly advocate it, except maybe in DMG 2, though it's related to the "Yes, and..." concept in DMG 1. Try it out a little bit and see how it works for you and your group.
Funny you'd mention that, they're about to come upon a dragon, that they can talk with and negotiate with, and that they don't have to kill.
And Iserith, and much as i'd love to, I don't trust my players with the plot and narritve just yet... That ended with a inn burned down, and the PCs almost dead, and about twenty villagers dead.
Note what you have here: a goal that, in theory doesn't require them to kill a single enemy. Furthermore, it's a goal that actively encourages thievery.Think of all the movies and stories there are in which the heroes have fought almost to their goal
And Iserith, and much as i'd love to, I don't trust my players with the plot and narritve just yet... That ended with a inn burned down, and the PCs almost dead, and about twenty villagers dead.
That's their way of hinting at the kind of game they want to play. Step back for a moment and see if you can't reframe the world in a way that makes the stuff they find fun inherent in the setting rather than a side effect (As an aside, a surprisingly large chunk of the tabletop RPG population enjoys playing mercenaries with a healthy dose of comedic sociopathy. Not saying your game has to conform to this, but if their goal is to seize the throne rather than save the princess it's best to figure that out early on)
That's their way of hinting at the kind of game they want to play. Step back for a moment and see if you can't reframe the world in a way that makes the stuff they find fun inherent in the setting rather than a side effect (As an aside, a surprisingl
Start small with what Centauri suggests. Deciding what trinket they themselves stole off the goblin, however insignificant it may turn out to be, is giving them narrative control. You can gradually give them more and more to whatever comfort level you prefer.
DMs often think they can control things they can't and are very afraid to give up what little control they think they have. All that control, real or imagined, is completely illusory and given to the DM by the players anyway. Thank them for that trust by giving some back.
Start small with what Centauri suggests. Deciding what trinket they themselves stole off the goblin, however insignificant it may turn out to be, is giving them narrative control. You can gradually give them more and more to whatever comfort level yo
(As an aside, a surprisingly large chunk of the tabletop RPG population enjoys playing mercenaries with a healthy dose of comedic sociopathy....)
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account. Perhaps they did, once upon at time, but I don't exactly recall that. Of course, no one has to use modules, but the fact that modules strongly imply that players will more or less willingly go along with standard heroic plot hooks, and that, by extension, those players who don't (or their DMs) are doing something wrong.
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account. Perhaps they did, once upon at time, but I don't exactly recall that. Of course, no one has to use modules, but the fact that modules strongly imply
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account. Perhaps they did, once upon at time, but I don't exactly recall that. Of course, no one has to use modules, but the fact that modules strongly imply that players will more or less willingly go along with standard heroic plot hooks, and that, by extension, those players who don't (or their DMs) are doing something wrong.
Oh man, don't get me started on plot hooks or published mods. Or what lessons both teach new DMs that then have to be deprogrammed later when things (inevitably?) go awry.
Oh man, don't get me started on plot hooks or published mods. Or what lessons both teach new DMs that then have to be deprogrammed later when things (inevitably?) go awry.
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account.
My first major break with the linear narrative format was when on a whim I allowed a player to make a Neutral Evil character in an otherwise "white knight" style party (thankfully the player's interpretation of the alignment was more self-centered jerk than psycho). When none of the standard heroic plot hooks caught his character's interest ("It's the right thing to do" "Your liege lord commands it" etc) I was forced to provide incentives that the character (and by extension the player) actually wanted.
My first major break with the linear narrative format was when on a whim I allowed a player to make a Neutral Evil character in an otherwise "white knight" style party (thankfully the player's interpretation of the alignment was more self-centered je
Side effect of this method that I've noticed after a while using it - my prep work gets less and less. As your players take on more of the narrative, you'll need less on the front end to produce the same amount and quality of play experience. As I consider prep to be a barrier to DMing (especially entry to DMing in the first place), this is a big upside.
I was looking through some old adventures I wrote the other day and noticing just how much I would now cut out if I ran them again today. "Don't need to know this to make it work..." "Or that..." "This detail can be filled in by the players..." "Scratch that out..." "This whole planned scene can go..." and so on.
Very true, My prep has diminished significantly over the years, to the point now that I really only prepare the BBEG, have a rough idea of what could be encountered, and a general context of the story.
Very true, My prep has diminished significantly over the years, to the point now that I really only prepare the BBEG, have a rough idea of what could be encountered, and a general context of the story.
Interesting approach. Though I still prefer to try and approach every single part of the session as the adventure, no matter where they're at. Thus, if I asked them about everything, you're looking at too much time to get anywhere significant.
Yes, I used to do that, too, and a lot of DMs still do. Not my cup of tea as a player or DM. I'd rather not play than talk to barkeeps and go shopping in town. Unless the adventure happens to be in the town, of course (which I rarely choose as a location).
My take on this is that D&D is nice and broad and useful for a lot of styles, but it does a few things well. Among those things is location-based fantasy adventuring. Anything else is a gamble because D&D was not specifically built for those things. Horror, mystery, and other genres come to mind. Now, the DM can build up a bunch of non-transferrable skills to make those genres work, but it's still hit or miss in my opinion, especially given there are other games that do it better. The old burn down the tavern routine might be a way better scenario in Fiasco than in D&D. By focusing on what D&D does best, you improve your chances at a better game.
D&D is a flexible game. You can make it the best at anything.
Yes, I used to do that, too, and a lot of DMs still do. Not my cup of tea as a player or DM. I'd rather not play than talk to barkeeps and go shopping in town. Unless the adventure happens to be in the town, of course (which I rarely choose as a loc
D&D is a flexible game. You can make it the best at anything.
That depends on how much work you want to put into it to get uncertain results. It's a broad game that's great in some areas and hit or miss in others. I'll use D&D to play the things it's really good at with no major effort on my part and save stuff like horror and mystery, for example, for other systems.
That depends on how much work you want to put into it to get uncertain results. It's a broad game that's great in some areas and hit or miss in others. I'll use D&D to play the things it's really good at with no major effort on my part and save stuff
I understand what you're saying here, but I think that your favored play style involves quite a bit of customization of the game. If I were going to try an LIM campaign with lots of player input, I'd do it with the Minimus system, which is already designed for something similar.
I understand what you're saying here, but I think that your favored play style involves quite a bit of customization of the game. If I were going to try an LIM campaign with lots of player input, I'd do it with the Minimus system, which is already de
D&D is a flexible game. You can make it the best at anything.
That depends on how much work you want to put into it to get uncertain results. It's a broad game that's great in some areas and hit or miss in others. I'll use D&D to play the things it's really good at with no major effort on my part and save stuff like horror and mystery, for example, for other systems.
If you're not willing to put the work in, I'm going to go back to calling that lazy DMing.
That depends on how much work you want to put into it to get uncertain results. It's a broad game that's great in some areas and hit or miss in others. I'll use D&D to play the things it's really good at with no major effort on my part and save stuff
If you're not willing to put the work in, I'm going to go back to calling that lazy DMing.
In my experience it often actually requires more work since the players that like this style of gaming pick things you never considered yourself. The work though is done after the session, when you modify your plots and game world based on what the players did. It is certainly not for every group, but with the right kind of players it keeps the DM on the alert and it can be fun even though lowering one's control over the game can be a challenge in itself. One big benefit is that it reduces frustration, because for example nothing frustrates me more than a DM telling me my player tripped and shouts loudly in pain because I rolled a 1 on stealth, even though the end result of that check is still 24, high enough that no low-level monster will hear it
In my experience it often actually requires more work since the players that like this style of gaming pick things you never considered yourself. The work though is done after the session, when you modify your plots and game world based on what the p
If you're not willing to put the work in, I'm going to go back to calling that lazy DMing.
In my experience it often actually requires more work since the players that like this style of gaming pick things you never considered yourself. The work though is done after the session, when you modify your plots and game world based on what the players did. It is certainly not for every group, but with the right kind of players it keeps the DM on the alert and it can be fun even though lowering one's control over the game can be a challenge in itself. One big benefit is that it reduces frustration, because for example nothing frustrates me more than a DM telling me my player tripped and shouts loudly in pain because I rolled a 1 on stealth, even though the end result of that check is still 24, high enough that no low-level monster will hear it
Italics: I'm glad you recognize that it's not fit for everyone.
Bold: That sounds more like a problem with natural 1s than an issue with the DM/playstyle. Maybe suggest doing away with 1 = failure?
In my experience it often actually requires more work since the players that like this style of gaming pick things you never considered yourself. The work though is done after the session, when you modify your plots and game world based on what the p
My group loves crazy things happening on critical failures/successes. That's one area where we probably make up the details of what happened as often as the DM does.
Not really. Nothing I'm suggesting isn't already in 4e materials or isn't based firmly in D&D game design of old.
You heavily borrow mechanics from Dungeon World. I'm not saying this is a problem, but how is it not a custom modification of the game?
My group loves crazy things happening on critical failures/successes. That's one area where we probably make up the details of what happened as often as the DM does.You heavily borrow mechanics from Dungeon World. I'm not saying this is a problem, bu
I heavily borrow the good ideas on GMing and organization that Dungeon World espouses which aren't particularly new and came from... D&D. Location-in-motion is just a dungeon with an ecology.
I use 4e mechanics for all rolls and the like. Shared storytelling and other concepts like that are straight out of the DMG1/DMG2 for 4e.
I heavily borrow the good ideas on GMing and organization that Dungeon World espouses which aren't particularly new and came from... D&D. Location-in-motion is just a dungeon with an ecology.I use 4e mechanics for all rolls and the like. Shared story
My group loves crazy things happening on critical failures/successes. That's one area where we probably make up the details of what happened as often as the DM does.
Haha, I love those too. My players enjoy it from time to time, but mostly only the successful stuff (who wouldn't, right?). In our last session, the player rolled a 1 and the sword flew out of his hand and landed in an area shrouded by the psionic's darkness ability. It was really the least of the bad things that could have happened.
Haha, I love those too. My players enjoy it from time to time, but mostly only the successful stuff (who wouldn't, right?). In our last session, the player rolled a 1 and the sword flew out of his hand and landed in an area shrouded by the psionic's
Right, so it's not a heavy modification; mostly just a change in how you organize things. But the changes that would be needed to run, say, mystery or horror are similar in scope, I think. Maybe if I tried to do one of those I would change my mind.
Right, so it's not a heavy modification; mostly just a change in how you organize things. But the changes that would be needed to run, say, mystery or horror are similar in scope, I think. Maybe if I tried to do one of those I would change my mind.
Right, so it's not a heavy modification; mostly just a change in how you organize things. But the changes that would be needed to run, say, mystery or horror are similar in scope, I think. Maybe if I tried to do one of those I would change my mind.
If how I write my notes down on paper to run a game is somehow mandated by D&D, that's news to me. I do D&D for one thing: Fantasy adventuring. It does it well.
A good mystery or horror game has different designs and mechanics that work for those genres. You'd have to be putting a lot of work into it to make it work or developing additional non-transferrable skills with a specific group that buys in to get a reasonable success rate. I'm not willing to do that when I can just pick up another game and run that instead and get more consistent results. That's no slight on D&D.
If how I write my notes down on paper to run a game is somehow mandated by D&D, that's news to me. I do D&D for one thing: Fantasy adventuring. It does it well.A good mystery or horror game has different designs and mechanics that work for those genr
If I wanted mystery or horror outside of the fantasy genre, I'd do the same. But I think I could try for fantasy mystery or fantasy horror within D&D, wihout an excessive amount of work. On the other hand, I make up custom mechanics on the fly for atypical situations all the time.
If I wanted mystery or horror outside of the fantasy genre, I'd do the same. But I think I could try for fantasy mystery or fantasy horror within D&D, wihout an excessive amount of work. On the other hand, I make up custom mechanics on the fly for at
Bold: That sounds more like a problem with natural 1s than an issue with the DM/playstyle. Maybe suggest doing away with 1 = failure?
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble description so odd
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ;)). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble d
Bold: That sounds more like a problem with natural 1s than an issue with the DM/playstyle. Maybe suggest doing away with 1 = failure?
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble description so odd
Ah. That makes sense. If the DM isn't going by natural 1 = failure, then it certainly is an odd thing to say. ...hm...interesting.
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ;)). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble d
Bold: That sounds more like a problem with natural 1s than an issue with the DM/playstyle. Maybe suggest doing away with 1 = failure?
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble description so odd
Ah. That makes sense. If the DM isn't going by natural 1 = failure, then it certainly is an odd thing to say. ...hm...interesting.
Just to be fair to that particular DM (who might be reading this), it is something I have seen a lot of DM do. In fact, I always have to actively supress that same urge when I DM. As a DM I want to describe what happens when they fail that check, but to do what I want other DMs to me, I try to let the players themselves provide the descriptions.
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ;)). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble d
Bold: That sounds more like a problem with natural 1s than an issue with the DM/playstyle. Maybe suggest doing away with 1 = failure?
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble description so odd
Ah. That makes sense. If the DM isn't going by natural 1 = failure, then it certainly is an odd thing to say. ...hm...interesting.
Just to be fair to that particular DM (who might be reading this), it is something I have seen a lot of DM do. In fact, I always have to actively supress that same urge when I DM. As a DM I want to describe what happens when they fail that check, but to do what I want other DMs to me, I try to let the players themselves provide the descriptions.
I wouldn't necessarily take that ability away from the DM. After all, the player failed horribly. It's a 1, after all. They did f*** up so badly that something strange needs to happen. But if you're not going by a natural 1 = fail rule, it probably is better to let the player decide how they messed up. Also, there really is no need to concern yourself with what other DMs expect or want you to do. Use them as guidance and tools for suggestion, sure. But never take their opinion to concrete heart. Always adjust for what you know your players will enjoy most. That's key to anything on these boards.
1s are not a natural failure. We run RAW in that regards. The 24 was a failure, because my PC needed a 25 (some monsters actually do have a decent Perception ;)). It is exactly because that natural 1 is not an automatic failure that made the fumble d
In my games, a nat 1 or 20 is a success on attack or save rolls, but on skill checks we follow another rule.
For skills a nat 1 counts a -10, and a nat 20 counts as +30.
This is sort of in between the critical success/failure, and just taking the unmodified numbers.
In my games, a nat 1 or 20 is a success on attack or save rolls, but on skill checks we follow another rule.For skills a nat 1 counts a -10, and a nat 20 counts as +30. This is sort of in between the critical success/failure, and just taking the unm
It's not "lazy DMing", more like being good at thinking quickly. Plus players tend to enjoy the results more.
To be fair though, that thing about the amount of work someone is able to put in had nothing to do with specific adventure prep.
It's not "lazy DMing", more like being good at thinking quickly. Plus players tend to enjoy the results more.To be fair though, that thing about the amount of work someone is able to put in had nothing to do with specific adventure prep.
So, I hate to rezzuct this post, but something has come up in my group again, which as me worried.
We're running the Red Box/Starter Box and my party has just come across Kurrash the Bugbear, who has an Axe that has a +9 to attack rolls, and does 2d8 + 6 damage.
My group sees this, and how much damage it's doing and they are exicted to steal the axe from his body, but i'm a bit worried that the axe being a bit OP at their level, what should I do?
So, I hate to rezzuct this post, but something has come up in my group again, which as me worried.We're running the Red Box/Starter Box and my party has just come across Kurrash the Bugbear, who has an Axe that has a +9 to attack rolls, and does 2d8
It's mundane. It does 2d8+6 damage in the hands of a monster because that's how monster math works. In the hands of a PC, it does whatever an axe does for damage as per the PHB.
It's mundane. It does 2d8+6 damage in the hands of a monster because that's how monster math works. In the hands of a PC, it does whatever an axe does for damage as per the PHB.
It's mundane. It does 2d8+6 damage in the hands of a monster because that's how monster math works. In the hands of a PC, it does whatever an axe does for damage as per the PHB.
A greataxe does 1d12 damage. That it is a "lifedrinker" weapon gives it magical properties as listed. But it's still a greataxe.
Alright, well thank you, hopefully I don't get much of a back-lash from my players, it sounded like they were more interested in selling it anyway.
A greataxe does 1d12 damage. That it is a "lifedrinker" weapon gives it magical properties as listed. But it's still a greataxe.[/quote]Alright, well thank you, hopefully I don't get much of a back-lash from my players, it sounded like they were more
