Community

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:59AM, JTheta wrote:

Ah very cool! Sounds like a perceptive group! I tip my hat to them! The speed with which a group might see through a situation like that doesn't really impact whether or not I would use it though. Did the group have a particular visceral/emotive reaction to it?

Actually, I haven't tried it quite in the way you're describing, like with any real attempt to be subtle. In this case, they knew they were in some kind of illusory world, and were presented with some extremely attractive options. Basically, a shop with cheap, plentiful and overpowered magic items, along with a dungeon and a cave system full of random encounters. These were three of four locations listed on sign posts at a crossroads. They realized pretty quickly that those three were being provided for the purpose of distracting them from the fourth.

What impressed me more was that when they got into the world in that fourth direction, they guessed quickly and correctly that it was created as a paradise for a small girl they'd met earlier. 

Very cool indeed. Sounds quite fun.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:01AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Hmm Quantum World campaign...hmm, that does actually give me an idea for an illusion-based "dungeon" where things only occur according to the PCs expectations, essentially trapping them in their own mini-campaign within a campaign but where things are clearly too convenient. I might have to use that at some point.

Interesting idea - especially if they expect bad stuff to happens...
"Look at that Cat over there - is it dead or alive? - or maybe undead..."

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:01AM, YagamiFire wrote:

What you mention about "wasting" is one of the primary reasons I steal and/or generate-on-the-fly things like that. It is enough to know that a dungeon IS somewhere in a particular given space. Perhaps a dungeon someone else made that has already been slightly modified by the DM is sitting there waiting to be explored...or maybe it is generated on the fly. Either way, there is little risk of "wasted" effort so it is how I generally do it. There are more acceptable "dungeons" or ruins or such online than a single group could ever hope to explore, especially since more and more are being made every day. Additionally, if it's between sessions and the group has made it clear they are delving deeper into a dungeon or about to enter one, then it is safe to put forth the effort...and that is when I do. Otherwise, there's far more good to be had coming up with compelling NPCs, etc to populate the area.

Yes, I do the same - prepare in some detail if I know the PCs are heading in that direction. Sometimes I ask the players ahead of play what they intent to do next session if there are several major options they can choose between - usually they have some special goal (plot or character) they wish to pursue - then I can prepare in some detail if necessary.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:39AM, JTheta wrote:

- encounters can be thought out and created in advance (less of a problem in non-4th ed. campaigns, but 4th ed. encounters are often quite 'rigid' and since the battles takes long to resolve they often requires some preparation and thought)

What do you mean by "rigid?" I've set up 4th edition encounters on the fly by randomly rolling off a large list of monsters, then making sure they were covering different combat rolls and fell within the XP budget, and it worked quite well. Also, I've read in several places that in earlier editions of D&D, encounters were harder to set up. 

I've played the first couple of editions a fair amount, but only a bit of 3.x - combats were quite quick in the first editions, and easy to set up (monsters had only a limited amount of special abilities and there were fewer of them, so as a DM I would know each of their stats etc pretty well). I think that it required more work in 3.x for the DM (to create NPCs etc), but as mentioned I don't have to much experience there.

Since the combats take so long in 4th ed. (easily 1-2 hours when we play, and sometimes as much as 3-4 hours for especially difficult and heroic battles where the PCs are really tested) I like it if each battle is interesting, preferrably in some unique way, which require a bit of thought (for my part at least) regarding setup, strength, which monsters are interesting or challenging to fight against, fits the plot or environment, etc.
I was also indirectly referring to the encounter-based adventures approach the official modules use - starting position for each monster is indicated on map, room layout is done in some detail, sometimes even color map attached etc.

Clearly many DMs do it different ways (hence the including of the wording 'often' above - indicating just my impression of how things are, of course), but I think that 4th ed. has much more focus on encounters (balanced combats, monster roles, tactics, powers etc) than the first couple of editions, and how they 'should' ( /could) be designed - that's what I meant by 'rigid' but maybe that term doesn't catch this very well (?) (as you've probably found out by now I am not a native English speaker )

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:39PM, pilgaard wrote:

(as you've probably have found out by now I am not a native English speaker )

Just wanted to say that, based on the clarity of your posts, I personally would not have guessed that.

*sigh*

Actually, now that I think of it...nowadays a solid mastery of the English language SHOULD make me surmise the writer isn't a native speaker. It is to laugh...or weep.